Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

World Trade Organisation

David Taylor: If she will make a statement on the future work of the World Trade Organisation.

Patricia Hewitt: The next ministerial conference of the WTO will take place in Doha from 9 to 16 November. The United Kingdom Government seek a broad-based new round. We believe that that is the best way forward for a world trading system that will benefit all countries, including developing countries.

David Taylor: Unprecedented public hostility and civil disorder have been provoked by the WTO plans for further liberalisation of trade, because they fail the basic tests concerning environmental sustainability, cultural diversity, the eradication of poverty and respect for human rights. This autumn in Doha, will our Government stand shoulder to shoulder with the poor and dispossessed peoples of this planet against the mega-rich corporate lobbyists, so that smoke from the streets of Seattle does not drift into the conference chambers of Qatar?

Patricia Hewitt: I understand the concerns that many people have about the exploitation of workers and the environment in developing countries by some multinational companies. The answer, as I know my hon. Friend agrees, is not violent protests such as we saw on the streets of Seattle; nor is it to cut developing countries out of world trade. The answer is to develop a rules-based system for world trade that will help developing countries—and that is what the Secretary of State for International Development and I shall work to achieve in partnership not only with our colleagues in the European Union, but with our colleagues in developing countries. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to support us in those endeavours.

Anne McIntosh: What reassurance can the Secretary of State give the House today that the conference planned for the autumn will be conducted safe from the rioting that we have seen on other such occasions? Mindful of the incidents during recent football matches in Copenhagen, can she reassure the House that the Government will convince their partners that the conference will be held in absolute safety and that conclusions will be reached?

Patricia Hewitt: I know that the Qatari Government are doing everything possible to ensure that the conference is indeed held in conditions of safety and security. Naturally, they are backed in those endeavours by the United Kingdom Government and our partners in the EU.

Andrew MacKinlay: Does my right hon. Friend understand that for many of us the other side of the coin to the WTO is the International Labour Organisation? What efforts will she make to ensure that discussions at the WTO take account of the many unfulfilled obligations of this and other Governments attending the conference to commitments that we have signed up to as members of the ILO? There is a feeling in this House that under both the Conservative Government and this Labour Government insufficient attention is being given to our obligations to the workers whose interests are represented by the ILO.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. Indeed, I have raised that very issue of the discussions that need to happen within the ILO with Mike Moore, the general secretary of the WTO, when I spoke to him recently. Of course we have to ensure that there are fair rules on labour standards and environmental issues as part of a framework for fair trade in the global economy. We must also ensure—this is of considerable concern to India and other developing countries—that the need for fair labour standards and environmental protection is not used as an excuse for protectionism by developed countries against the poorest countries.

John Horam: The Secretary of State said that she would co-ordinate her approach with the Secretary of State for International Development. Will she assure me that she will also co-ordinate it with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

Patricia Hewitt: Of course.

Manufacturing Business

David Borrow: What steps are being taken by her Department to support exporting by small manufacturing businesses.

Nigel Griffiths: Among the steps we are taking are £17.5 million of support to more than 9,000 UK businesses attending overseas trade fairs and meetings in 56 countries, £2.2 million on overseas trade missions, and a new £1.9 million pilot programme to support new exporters in each region of the UK. That is part of the Government's £66 million annual trade development and promotion programme.

David Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. When I visit small manufacturing companies in my constituency, once we have got past the lengthy discussion about the weakness of the euro we get down to practical talks about what the Government can do to help small manufacturing companies to export. A common theme in most of those discussions is the need for more support for attending trade fairs. In particular, some existing rules restrict the number of times that a company can be supported in attending trade fairs. That should be re-examined. At a time when exporting manufacturing industries are finding things especially difficult, perhaps my hon. Friend's Department could look again at the existing rules to see whether further resources and assistance can be made available.

Nigel Griffiths: I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty champion of manufacturers in his constituency and region. The existing support available is £2,300 for each trip to exhibit abroad. Exporters are entitled to up to three such grants over a set period. Indeed, the result of that spending is trade for UK firms estimated at £500 million. That represents a return of well over 25 to 1, and is money well spent. However, I shall certainly take on board the thoughtful points made by my hon. Friend.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister confirm that Britain is now running the biggest deficit in traded goods since 1697, when records began? Small businesses feel completely frustrated by the extra red tape and regulation pumped out by the Government, all of which damage their competitiveness in international markets, thereby adding to that trade deficit. Is the Minister aware that the DTI's own regulation taskforce, headed by the Labour peer Lord Haskins, has now called the system unworkable and has criticised the Department's efforts—or claims—to be simplifying things as ineffective, and in some cases non-existent? What is the Minister going to do about that criticism? Will his Department simply carry on ignoring the criticism from his own side or will it finally do something about it?

Nigel Griffiths: We certainly intend to take Lord Haskins' suggestions seriously. I note that Francis Maude, when he was a Minister—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Is he still in the House? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is still with us—I apologise to him. He will be able to refresh our memory about the fact that in 1995 he used almost the same words as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat–Amory). I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wells does not pay tribute to the 170,000 new businesses of the past four years. I am also sorry that instead of going back two or three centuries, he does not go back to 1989. At present, the deficit is under 2.25 per cent. as a proportion of gross domestic product, which is much lower than the 1989 figure of 4 per cent. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

Harry Barnes: Under 1973 fair trading legislation, if a multinational company makes a bid for a UK manufacturing firm, it can be referred to the Competition Commission on the grounds of loss of exports. Will the Government retain that condition? If so, will they make use of it on occasion?

Nigel Griffiths: We will shortly be consulting on reform of the competition regime. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's points are noted and considered.

Climate Change Levy

David Amess: What representations she has received from business about the impact of the climate change levy on UK competitiveness.

Douglas Alexander: The Department has received a number of representations from business about the climate change levy, including its impact on UK competitiveness. The levy has been introduced to help the UK deliver its commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, while safeguarding UK business competitiveness.

David Amess: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box—and I now realise how old I must be getting—but can he justify placing that extra tax on manufacturing companies throughout the UK, especially when small businesses involved in manufacturing have been brought to their knees as a result of the policies of this rotten Government? Finally, will the Minister justify how those poor hard-working companies will be able to pay the extra £30 million in VAT on top of their existing liabilities?

Douglas Alexander: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the characteristic grace and generosity of his introductory remarks.
	The competitiveness of UK business extends beyond the climate change levy. We have established a platform of stability in this country, with low inflation and interest rates, and we have offered incentives to the manufacturing community. On the specific issue of the climate change levy, I merely make the following points: all the revenues are recycled via reduced national insurance contributions and energy support for business; there is an 80 per cent. discount for energy-intensive sectors that deliver energy savings in negotiated agreements with the Government; and modern manufacturing competitiveness requires not only labour productivity, but resource productivity.

Jackie Lawrence: The Minister will be aware that the report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has been published today, shows that global warming is increasing at double the rate that the panel predicted five years ago, with the result of failing crops throughout the world and possibly a loss of a quarter of food supplies in the poorest countries. Does he agree that the issue is not the climate change levy and its impact, but the impact of inaction on humanity in the future?

Douglas Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for that very timely question. The latest work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms the very worrying trend, and the consequences for the world if we do not tackle the problem of climate change. That reinforces the Government's determination to take action on climate change. It is noteworthy that although the Conservative party was willing to countenance international agreements when it was in government, it seems to have lost that resolve in opposition.

Michael Jack: Is the Minister aware of the impact of the climate change levy on investment in fuel-efficient combined heat and power systems? This week I received a representation from British Sugar, advising me that its investment in combined heat and power was under threat not just from the application of the levy, but from the operation of the new electricity trading arrangements—as the Minister will learn if he can find the appropriate spot in his briefing notes. Will he give me an undertaking for British Sugar that he will carefully consider that matter and review whether, if he wants energy efficiency, turning off investment in combined heat and power is the best way to achieve it?

Douglas Alexander: The position of individual businesses, including the one that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, will depend on the extent to which they take advantage of the various levy exemptions, the new capital allowances for energy efficiency investments, the energy support and the advice on the new carbon tax. If he wishes to write directly to me about the company that he mentioned, I shall, of course, ensure that the matter is dealt with.

Paddy Tipping: Will the Minister consider British Sugar's representations? He will know that bringing new environmentally friendly combined heat and power systems on stream is a Government policy objective, and the present arrangements for the climate change levy on energy exports to the local network are causing very real problems.

Douglas Alexander: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Alan Duncan: I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position as Minister. It gives me especial pleasure, as I think that I top him by about a quarter of an inch—[Laughter]—at most.
	The climate change levy was introduced in April. As the Minister well knows, manufacturing costs rose sharply in May and output fell more sharply than at any time for a decade. Does he accept that, as a matter principle, a tax should not be levied just when the sector that it hits hardest is having the hardest time? What possible justification can he give for adding to the hardship of manufacturers? How can he say today that the tax will improve the sector's competitiveness?

Douglas Alexander: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic generosity concerning my arrival at the Dispatch Box—matched only by his initial comments on my appointment to the Department of Trade and Industry.
	On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, the Government have indeed worked in partnership with business to consider a range of measures, and significant changes have been made to the climate change levy since it was first introduced. That reflects the DTI's sponsorship work. We need to ensure that British businesses get ahead of the curve by improving the productivity not only of the labour in those companies, but of the resources that they use. Countries and companies throughout the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are introducing similar measures and our challenge is to ensure that we lead on an agenda of manufacturing productivity. The climate change levy makes an important contribution to that as well as to our environmental objectives.

Small Businesses (North-West)

Lindsay Hoyle: What steps she has taken to increase the productivity of small businesses in the north-west region.

Nigel Griffiths: We have established the Small Business Service in the north-west region to help small businesses enhance their competitiveness and profitability. It works with key partners, such as the North West development agency, to champion entrepreneurship and minimise the burden of regulation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply. He will agree that the Small Business Service is very useful. However, could we not also help productivity by cutting some of the burden of red tape? That would assist, and allow small businesses to grow into the medium-sized and large enterprises that we want in the north-west.

Nigel Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend in hoping that the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 will make it far easier to tackle outdated, overlapping and overburdensome legislation. Patrick Carter, who has considerable business experience, has been asked to recommend simplifications to the payroll system to help all businesses, especially, I hope, the 3.7 million small businesses.

Richard Page: Further to the sensible and caring question asked by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—it was a good question—is the Minister aware that on Monday, the British Chambers of Commerce announced the result of a survey of the north-west, which painted a gloomy picture for small businesses, particularly those hit by foot and mouth? Is he aware that tens of thousands of people in the north-west have lost their jobs in the textile industry over the past four years and that that trend is continuing, mainly because of the high value of the pound? Is he further aware that the problems and cuts in companies such as BAE Systems, Marconi and Cammell Laird are resulting in further job losses for the small businesses that supply them? The list goes on and on.
	In view of that catalogue of woe, will the Minister now recognise that his response was woefully inadequate? Will he listen to the hon. Member for Chorley and come forward with measures for the north-west that will give help and encouragement for the future? Otherwise the job losses that are taking place in small businesses and manufacturing will continue.

Nigel Griffiths: I do not want to take up more time in the House than I am due, but on two of the key issues the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The Government have given an additional £3.65 million to the north-west to ensure that small farmers directly affected by the foot and mouth epidemic have access to good business advice through business links and other help. We are doing as much as possible to support businesses in the north-west, which now employ 3.1 million people—119,000 more than in 1997.
	I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman says is not generally accepted by workers in the north-west, especially those in manufacturing, whose average hourly earnings went up from about £8 to more than £10.50 in the most recent five years for which we have figures.

Flexible Working

Judy Mallaber: What action she is taking to help employees obtain flexible working arrangements.

Patricia Hewitt: Last month I appointed a new work and parents taskforce to consider how parents of young children and their employers can be encouraged to agree flexible hours that will suit them both. In addition, the Government's work-life balance campaign works with employers to introduce family-friendly working that meets the needs of both employees and business.

Judy Mallaber: I welcome the establishment of the working parents taskforce. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last Parliament the Select Committee on Education and Employment recommended that women returning to work after childbirth should be allowed to go part-time unless employers could show that that was impractical? Does she agree that, as a minimum, a code of guidance should be drawn up requiring employers to give reasons for rejecting any request for flexible working arrangements? Will she also highlight the areas of skilled employment, such as nursing, in which there are staff shortages and in which greater flexibility by employers could help them to deal with the shortages by making it easier for people to return to work?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes an important point about the real advantages that businesses get by extending flexible working hours. I am also conscious of the Select Committee's excellent work on the subject in the previous Parliament. We consulted specifically on how we could help mothers with new babies and parents of young children to work part-time, and we were repeatedly told, especially by mothers and groups that work with mothers, that they did not want to be in a battleground of disputes and employment tribunals.
	Parents want a sensible discussion with employers to arrive at a practical solution. They want their families' needs to be taken seriously. Our proposal ensures that parents have the right to be taken seriously, and the taskforce, under the chairmanship of Sir George Bain, will consider the practicalities of how we make that work for parents and businesses.

Vincent Cable: In welcoming the establishment of the taskforce, may I remind the Secretary of State what the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union said about it? He commented:
	"I am amazed that in the 21st Century the government is portraying the right to ask as a major breakthrough. What if the employer says 'No'?" Will she clarify the basic issue of principle before the taskforce gets under way? What if an employee makes a reasonable request for flexible working and the employer says no? Will the employee have legal redress?

Patricia Hewitt: As I made clear when I announced the establishment of the taskforce, the employee's right to make the request is accompanied by a duty for the employer to give that request proper and serious consideration. We are getting the issue on to the business agenda, so that employers and employees can produce solutions that suit them both. The approach has been welcomed by the TUC and the CBI, both of which are participating in the taskforce.

Anne Begg: Another group of workers who need flexible working arrangements are the disabled and sick. At the moment, employers are far too ready to pension off those people on the grounds of ill health. What is often required is a more flexible approach, such as a phased return to work, shorter working hours or a change in the working environment. Will the Secretary of State assure me that she will encourage employers to adopt those practices, and perhaps consider including groups such as disabled workers in legislation on flexible working for women?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As more businesses consider flexible working and understand the benefits that it brings to them by making it easier to recruit and retain good workers, more employers will extend flexible working hours not only to parents with young children but to people with disabilities or some level of illness.

Nick Gibb: That is all very well, but how will it improve flexible working practices for the Government to accept the European Union directive on national works councils, which will cost industry £260 million every year? Does the Secretary of State, as the voice of industry at the heart of the Government, accept that the No. 1 concern of British business is the increasing and intolerable burden of regulation? If she is serious about wanting to tackle the problems, she will find an Opposition who are keen to assist her. However, if she simply continues to add more costs for industry, she will find resistance on both sides of the House, and in the country as a whole, as British business becomes increasingly uncompetitive and people's jobs are put in jeopardy.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman referred to the works councils directive, which applies to multinational companies that work across several EU member states. I have been struck by the number of business leaders from such companies who have said that in practice the creation of works councils has proved very useful. The hon. Gentleman may be thinking of the proposed draft directive on information and consultation. His bigotry about all matters European means that he has not bothered to check his facts. The information and consultation directive, on which we agreed a common position a few weeks ago, will not impose works councils on British companies. We have succeeded in making the directive more flexible to ensure that British businesses will be able to find solutions that suit them.
	I notice that the hon. Gentleman has neither told us whether he thinks it is a good idea for employees to be consulted and given information by their employers, nor said whether he thinks that it is good to help parents to balance work and family. We support hard-working families and employees; the Conservative party does not.

Competitiveness

Doug Naysmith: What steps are being taken to ensure that products resulting from scientific advances made in the UK are competitive internationally.

Melanie Johnson: We are investing nearly £2 billion in the science base and about £250 million in strengthening collaboration between universities and businesses to ensure that scientific breakthroughs are turned into commercial success.

Doug Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I particularly welcome the work of the international technology service. What further steps is the Department taking to ensure that UK companies have access to worldwide knowledge and information?

Melanie Johnson: We are developing a number of initiatives that will give further momentum to entrepreneurial education for science and engineering students. A £15 million fund is available for a further round of the university challenge to enable good universities to access seed funds, which will assist in the transformation of good research into good business.
	In addition, we are doing more to make sure that scientists will be rewarded. We are working to produce a brain gain in the UK—[Hon. Members: "A brain what?"] A brain gain, as opposed to the brain drain that happened under the last Conservative Government. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that my noble Friend the Minister for Science will announce later today that five scientists will be rewarded in a five-year £20 million scheme to attract and retain the best scientific talent in the UK.

David Heath: I am not sure about the phrase "brain gain", but I support the move that has just been announced. Does the Minister agree that scientific progress can be made only if we have free exchange of the benefits of research? To that end, can she tell me what progress has been made in securing international agreements to prevent scientific protectionism, such as the patenting of naturally occurring genetic material or genotypes?

Melanie Johnson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an important issue, and we are in discussion with our European partners so as to make progress on it.

Brian White: Does my hon. Friend agree that clustering is one of the best ways to develop scientific breakthroughs? Can she assure me that where clusters, such as the Oxford and Cambridge technology arc, cross regional development agency and Small Business Service boundaries, artificial constraints will not inhibit technological development?

Melanie Johnson: I entirely agree that it is important to make clustering work, and I am sure that those working in science are keen that it should. We have been emphasising the role of regional development agencies in technology, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke to the chairmen of the RDAs earlier this week to stress their role in ensuring that business and science in the UK are successful.

Packaging and Production Waste

Bob Russell: What representations she has received from the labelling industry as to what constitutes packaging waste and production waste.

Melanie Johnson: The Department has received six letters from businesses in the UK labelling industry which refer to the Environment Agency's decision to issue guidance noting that the backing paper of labels should be treated as a packaging material.

Bob Russell: If the Government want to be helpful to the packaging industry, may I say that that is a very unhelpful answer, and suggest a way to resolve the problem? The Minister, accompanied by a sufficient number of experts and advisers, should get out of London and go to a proper factory where labelling is going on. May I extend an invitation to her to visit Pago Ltd. in Colchester, where she can see at first hand the difference between packaging waste and production waste?

Melanie Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the invitation. I am aware that he has assiduously been pursuing such issues with my fellow Ministers and the Environment Agency, and I believe that they have been dealt with thoroughly to date. We have elegantly transposed the definitions from the EU directive into UK implementation with the result, I am informed, that the cost in the UK is markedly lower than in any other EU member state. We recognise the value of the industry in the UK and we shall continue to work with it to ensure that implementation is as effective as possible.

Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend will be aware that timber and wood products are not included under the packaging waste regulations. A recovery target only is set for wood products because of the general feeling that timber cannot be recycled. However, there are companies, including one in my constituency, that recycle waste timber products and facilitate their further use. Unfortunately, such companies cannot take advantage of packaging recovery notes to generate income to help to establish the industry and increase the amount of waste wood that is recycled. Does my hon. Friend intend to look again at the regulations with a view to including such companies?

Melanie Johnson: The Environment Agency is responsible for interpreting and producing guidance on the current directive, and now that it has done that it is probably not possible to accommodate my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, a requirement of the directive is that it be reviewed, so it might be helpful if he makes representations to the Department, which I shall take up through my officials during future negotiations.

Nicholas Winterton: I have already raised this case with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of my constituency company, County Labels Ltd. of Adelphi Mill, Bollington, just north of Macclesfield. I have to tell the Under–Secretary that she really needs to come down to earth and get in touch with the reality of competition from Europe and elsewhere. In Europe, the backing paper on labels is not classed as packaging owing to its functionality and the fact that it forms an integral part of the manufacturing process—article 21, section 8 can be quoted in aid of my argument. Will the hon. Lady ensure that the backing paper on labels is not the subject of an additional onerous burden on our manufacturing industry?

Melanie Johnson: I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's grasp of detail—I congratulate him. We continue to work closely with representatives of UK paper and printing-related industries to resolve outstanding issues, but the fact is that the interpretation placed on the directive by the Environment Agency has been guided by a High Court decision and the agency is duty bound to give UK companies the best possible guidance in the light of legal decisions. May I also point out that the directive was agreed in 1994 by the then Conservative Government?

Steel Industry

Helen Jackson: If she will make a statement on prospects for the steel industry.

Alan Johnson: The United Kingdom steel industry has experienced difficult trading conditions in recent years and many jobs have been lost as a result of restructuring and cost cutting. However, the industry has an excellent productivity record, a wide range of high-quality products and a well trained work force. All of that will help its competitive position.

Helen Jackson: I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he accept that there is widespread concern in the steel industry in my constituency and in south Yorkshire that very high energy prices and uncertainty about the euro are making the industry less than competitive in Europe? Is he surprised by the fact that, according to his written answer to me on 9 July, his Department does not even know or collect region by region import and export figures for steel and related industries? Will he ask the Department to sharpen up its act on behalf of the steel industry so that, as Members of Parliament, we can track properly exactly what is happening region by region with exchange rates, imports and exports in our core manufacturing industry?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She has been a vigorous campaigner on behalf of steel communities, particularly in south Yorkshire. We are aware of the problems of the steel industry, but none of them can be solved instantly. They relate to issues which we are working hard to try to resolve.
	On my hon. Friend's specific point, I fully expect not to get the award for best written answer this year. I will look at the matter again, although I have made inquiries of the United Kingdom Steel Association, and it told me that it does not keep figures other than for Customs and Excise. So, it is a mystery why its report to my hon. Friend differs from the information that it is feeding to us. We should be able to ensure that we have better figures that are based on regions, especially since, through regional development agencies and the thrust of our regional approach, we shall need them in future.

Graham Brady: With UK energy prices already higher than those of many of our European Union competitors, is it not insane to pile the climate change levy on the UK steel industry while it is struggling to compete?

Alan Johnson: We have already had a canter round the course on the climate change levy. Corus—and the UK steel industry in general—was very clear that the climate change levy did not lead to its recent difficulties. Indeed, we have negotiated an exemption for dual-use fuels. That is subject to a challenge because there was a complaint by a UK secondary steel manufacturer, but it was widely welcomed by the steel industry. We have struck the proper balance between pursuing environmental targets, on which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, and ensuring that we have a competitive steel industry in this country.

Win Griffiths: Has my hon. Friend had any recent discussions with management and unions on the situation in south Wales, where we were particularly severely hit at Newport during the most recent reorganisation of British steel, in order to find out whether the Government can do anything further with Corus management and unions to promote the industry and ensure that there are no further job reductions in south Wales and in Port Talbot especially, which has a lot of good things going for it?

Alan Johnson: We announced a package of measures on 3 May to help steel communities throughout the country, but particularly in Wales. On my hon. Friend's specific point, I will of course be willing to talk to the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation and other unions, all of which have an excellent track record of taking a constructive approach to such problems. I would be delighted to talk to them to see whether we can assist further in the area that he has mentioned.

Information and Consultation Directive

Desmond Swayne: What reasons underlay her decision to agree to the information and consultation directive.

John Bercow: What recent discussions she has held with business organisations concerning the proposed European directive on information to and consultation with workers.

Alan Johnson: The Government have always believed that good companies inform and consult their employees. During negotiations on the proposed directive, our concern has been to avoid the rigid "one size fits all" approach. The agreement reached in Brussels on 11 June meets that requirement. We have maintained a close dialogue with business organisations on the directive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has recently discussed it with the CBI.

Desmond Swayne: The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) assured the Select Committee on 4 November 1998 that he would block the directive. However, the hon. Gentleman has paid for it, albeit with a post-dated cheque. What happened to the Government's policy? Did it go to the Back Benches with the right hon. Gentleman?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman should lie down in a darkened room and take a couple of tablets; this is not the end of civilisation as we know it. In 1998, we opposed the directive because of its "one size fits all" approach. Perhaps the Opposition should get information and start consultation because, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, the European works council model appears to be confused with the directive. The directive does not introduce works councils; we have the flexibility to ensure that it can be moulded to each member state's requirements. There is a seven-year transitional period, which is only slightly shorter than the time that it takes to elect a leader of the Conservative party. We have substantially modified the European directive to benefit UK companies and their work force.

John Bercow: That was a pitiful answer. Why can the Minister not see that the directive remains flawed and inappropriate, as the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), said on 18 January? Does the Minister not understand that it is opposed by all major representative business organisations, which fear the £260 million recurring costs? When will he recognise that information to and consultation with workers should be decided either by individual companies or this elected House and are not the proper business of the corporatist dirigistes of the European Union?

Alan Johnson: I am glad to announce to the hon. Gentleman that that is what the directive now provides for; our negotiations in Brussels on 11 June provided exactly that outcome. On information and consultation, the hon. Gentleman may be on another march to the left. If I remember rightly, and to personalise this a little, when he came into the House in 1997, he was against the lowering of the age of consent, he was against the minimum wage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those matters do not concern the House.

Alan Johnson: I am only saying that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is in touch with his feminine side, has read all the recommended books and, very soon, will be a great advocate of information and consultation.

Derek Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to achieve the brain gain posited by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) is to recognise the truth expressed by the managing director of a global company in my constituency, who said that the company discovered that with every pair of hands it got a free brain? Does that not underline the importance of the information and consultation directive? Will my hon. Friend ensure that nothing like Luton ever happens again?

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend has raised the crucial issue. I agree that you get a free brain as long as you ensure that you extract talent, imagination and energy from the work force. Some companies are better at that than others. However, the initiative will never work unless we bring employers with us. There have been two attempts at it—Whitleyism and the industrial democracy experiment in the 1970s, which did not work because both sides of industry ensured that they did not. With the directive, we are determined to ensure that there is a genuine change of culture so that workers are genuinely informed and consulted at times when that matters; there is an extraordinarily good business case for that proposition.

Andrew Miller: Following the final point in the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), can we be certain that, as a result of the directive, the kind of nonsense that took place at General Motors, when workers on the German works council were apprised of the company's plans while workers in Britain learned of them on British radio, will not happen again?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend has taken a great interest in this matter over a number of years. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) have made that very point. I think we are all determined that what happened to the Vauxhall work force at Luton does not happen to workers anywhere else in the country in future.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Rather than trying to rewrite recent history, will the Minister confirm that the Government were opposed to the directive, and said so repeatedly in the House? They were opposed to it on the ground that it breached the subsidiarity principle because it applies only to purely domestic firms and has nothing to do with EU trade or multinational companies. That objection remains valid. However, the Government have been outvoted. That happened when the Germans changed sides on the issue shortly after the British general election.
	Why are the Government, when they and this House have recently been out-manoeuvred and outvoted on this matter, signing up in the Nice treaty to another 31 areas of policy that will be decided by majority voting, allowing the will of the House and the Government to be out-manoeuvred and outvoted in new areas and even more often? Where is the logic in that?

Alan Johnson: I reiterate that our aim in all the discussions from 1998, when the directive was mooted, was to avoid a rigid and legalistic framework. Our aim was to avoid the works council model that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) mentioned. It was in that sense that we argued about subsidiarity.
	On 11 June, that changed as a result of our engaging in dialogue. Incidentally, there was not a vote; it was dialogue that enabled us to join the consensus. As a result of negotiation and discussion, we believe that we have a directive that British companies, even if they do not welcome it immediately, once they have read the details will agree takes us forward. That is in sharp contrast to what happened in relation to the European works council directive, when the Conservative Government opted out. The directive was negotiated and it affected UK companies because it applied to companies that had workers in more than one member state, but they had no input and no influence. There is now a different and far more constructive way of doing things in Europe.

Margaret Moran: As my hon. Friend has acknowledged, this is a matter of deep concern to my constituents, including Vauxhall employees and former employees who experienced sacking over their cereal without being informed by General Motors of their fate. Will he ensure that as part of the directive there is on-going information and consultation involving employees, not simply at the point of their being sacked, which is far too late a stage? Will he recognise, and perhaps advise Conservative Members who are opposed to any extension of workers' rights, that information and consultation, as the research of the Industrial Society has shown, bring increased productivity to businesses as well as benefits to workers?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I reiterate that the directive is not only about information and consultation in relation to redundancies. A collective redundancies agreement already covers that. We are talking about information and consultation on all areas where the work force have an interest, such as change of work organisation and future plans for the company.
	Every survey shows that if the work force are properly consulted and informed, there is an enormous reward for business. That is the crucial message that we need to get across over the next months and years.

Communications White Paper

Michael Fabricant: What plans she has to introduce legislation to implement the regulatory structure proposed in the Communications White Paper; and if she will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: I am pleased to announce that this afternoon the Government will introduce in another place the Office of Communications Bill, which will be a paving measure related to the draft communications Bill that was announced in the Queen's Speech. The communications Bill itself will be published in draft later this Session.

Michael Fabricant: That is good news. The introduction of the Bill is long overdue. Its delayed introduction has been holding back the development of information technology. The Minister will know that many people in the industry welcomed many parts of the White Paper, which was issued in December last year.
	Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House find it extraordinary that while the Government are introducing Ofcom, which will control the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, Oftel, the Radio Authority and the Radiocommunications Agency, the BBC is once again to be its own judge and jury, with the BBC board of governors being responsible to itself? When will the Government grasp the nettle and finally make the BBC answerable to a third party—the people who pay the licence fee?

Douglas Alexander: Although I am happy to acknowledge to the House that there is close joint working between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the matter, it is a matter with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is dealing. I shall be happy to pass her observations on to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon. Does he agree that the urgency of the matter is paramount, especially for areas such as the Rhondda, where broadband access is still denied to the whole of the constituency, and where the growing digital divide between the information-rich and the information-poor is a problem that should worry every part of the country?

Douglas Alexander: I agree that we should strike an appropriate balance, making sure that there is the necessary consultation with the various partners who will be involved in the detailed discussions concerning the draft Bill, while maintaining the necessary momentum through the paving Bill, which I understand will be introduced in another place this afternoon.

Miners' Compensation

Bill O'Brien: What action she is taking to increase the payment of compensation to former mineworkers; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: We are making real progress in speeding up medical assessments and compensation payments for retired miners. We are paying out about £1 million in compensation every day, and shortly we will have paid out £500 million across our country. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) for all the work that they did when in this Department to ensure that British miners receive the justice which they deserve and which was so long denied to them by the Conservatives.

Bill O'Brien: What action does my right hon. Friend intend to take in response to representations about claims that have been outstanding for four or five years? Constituents of ours who are in their mid-80s are still waiting for compensation. Some people fear that they will not receive the benefit while they are living. It is unacceptable that claims made four or five years ago have still not been met. Will my right hon. Friend take action to ensure that those long-standing claims are met without further delay, so that our constituents receive what they are entitled to while they are alive?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. We have already put in place a system to prioritise the compensation claims of the oldest miners and the sickest miners, so that they go to the top of the queue for the medical assessment that has to be done before the compensation can be paid. We are determined to ensure that those assessments are made by spring next year. We are carrying them out as quickly as we can, because that is the right thing to do.

Patrick Cormack: I entirely accept the right hon. Lady's good faith, but will she be a little more expeditious and try to ensure that all the claims are settled by spring next year? It is extremely important that they should be.

Patricia Hewitt: The scheme is the largest personal injury compensation scheme that has ever been established in our country. No one has ever done that before. We have already received 150,000 claims. We do not know how many more will come in—they are still coming in every week. If those cases had been pursued individually through the courts, the miners would have waited up to 15 years to get their compensation. We have prioritised them. We will deal with the oldest and sickest miners first. We have recruited more medical specialists to carry out the assessments. We will go on dealing with the matter as quickly as is possible, but I cannot give an end date by which we will have finished dealing with all the cases, because in some cases we have not even received the claims.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that more than 300 lawyers are involved in the settlement of the claims—a lot more than would have been involved if the NUM areas had remained intact? They include a lot of fly-by-night lawyers. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how much they are likely to get out of the £4 billion that has been set aside for claims in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema and vibration white finger? Can she tell us whether some of them are dragging their feet deliberately? All of them receive a handling fee that is provided by the Government and comes from the taxpayers' pocket. When my right hon. Friend looks into ways of speeding up the claims, will she deal with those legal people who are holding up a lot of claims in order to line their own pockets?

Patricia Hewitt: I think that the problem of having 300 lawyers involved in the claims has been very real. We are now dealing better with the solicitors' group and agreeing a faster way forward to get the cases resolved and money paid out. Mr. Justice Turner, the High Court judge who has been hearing the case, confirmed last November that we had to have a complex system in order to achieve fairness. That means, for instance, that we have to pay lawyers for up to one and a half hours' legal advice to help claimants to fill in the assessment forms, which are necessarily complex. Our objective is to get fair compensation to those miners as quickly as possible. We will pay the lawyers a fair fee, but we will not let them hold up the process.

Business of the House

Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 16 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
	Motions to approve the membership of Select Committees.
	Motion to approve the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001.
	Motion to approve a report for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
	Tuesday 17 July—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (2nd Day).
	Wednesday 18 July—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (3rd Day).
	Thursday 19 July—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
	Motion to approve the Police (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2001.
	Friday 20 July—Motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
	The provisional business for the week following the recess will be as follows:
	Monday 15 October—Second Reading of the Football (Disorder) Bill.
	Tuesday 16 October—Remaining stages of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
	Motion to approve the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001.
	Wednesday 17 October—Remaining stages of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
	Thursday 18 October—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day).
	Friday 19 October—Debate on drugs strategy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	For the convenience of the House, I should announce that the topics for debate in Westminster Hall when we return from the recess will be:
	Thursday 18 October—Debate on the report from the Education and Employment Committee entitled "Early Years".
	Thursday 25 October—Debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on genetics and insurance.
	Thursday 1 November—Debate on third world debt.
	Thursday 8 November—Debate on the reports from the Education and Employment Committee regarding higher education.
	Thursday 15 November—Debate on housing.

Angela Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. We welcome the opportunity to debate the Select Committee nominations on Monday. Will he confirm that there will be a free vote for Labour Members on both the Front and Back Benches? The business motion tabled today in respect of the debate seeks to finish the deliberations at 7 o'clock on Monday, so if a statement is made, we will be left with only two and a half hours to debate this important matter. The House will appreciate that the Opposition are very interested in these procedures. I do not expect him to commit himself now, but will he agree to be flexible in terms of that particular business motion if a statement is made? Obviously, we all look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I hope that the curtailment of time will not preclude hon. Members on either side of the House from contributing to such an important debate.
	Yesterday, along with colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I voted against the draft special educational needs code of practice because it was flawed and did not recognise the individual and specific needs of children. I am pleased to see that the Government withdrew the code later in the day. Will the Leader of the House outline how the Government will now proceed with the code, particularly as we are coming not only to the parliamentary recess but to the long summer holidays in the educational world? Parents, teachers and Members of Parliament would be anxious if the Government were to publish their changes to the code during the summer weeks when there is no proper opportunity to scrutinise them. How do the Government intend to proceed with this matter?
	Earlier this week, the press reported that there are to be significant changes in the Cabinet Office in respect of the way in which the Government deal with national crises. Apparently, as a result of the way they handled the fuel crisis last year and the foot and mouth crisis this year, there are to be changes in the way COBRA—the Cabinet Committee that deals with crises—is run. When the Deputy Prime Minister returns to these shores, could he be asked to come to the House before we rise for the summer recess so that we might all be apprised of the Government's thinking on the way in which national crises are dealt with?
	Finally—I am sure that I do not need to ask this question—will the Leader of the House reassure us that the Prime Minister will be available in the coming week to make a statement to the House on the talks on Northern Ireland?

Robin Cook: I look forward with the keenest of interest to our debate on Monday. I am happy to give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks. On the Labour Benches, the vote on who should be a member of a Select Committee will be a free vote. This is a House of Commons—[Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will let me finish my sentence, I think that I shall be able to satisfy him.
	This is a matter for the House and it is right that the House should decide who should be members of the Select Committees. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Robin Cook: I was pleading with the right hon. and learned Gentleman to let me finish but, as he is bursting with enthusiasm, I shall repeat what I have already announced to the world this morning, which is that there will be no payroll vote on any of these issues on Monday. It is for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, and those behind me, to decide how they will vote in any particular case. I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may force a large number of votes, having counted his amendments.
	In response to the question about timing, I must stress that this is, so far as we can discover, the first time that any Government have scheduled a debate about the setting up of Select Committees in prime time. Such debates are usually taken late at night. This debate will be held in prime time between the end of questions until 7 pm, and I am sure that that will provide plenty of time for the House to explore the issues of concern. I should be extremely surprised if my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) did not contribute to that debate.
	The Government have announced their intention to amend the educational code and to bring the matter forward for debate after the summer recess. There will, therefore, be an opportunity for the House to consider it when we return in the autumn.
	On Northern Ireland, I am absolutely confident that the Government will take every possible measure to ensure that the House is kept informed of the progress of the talks. Indeed, as the hon. Lady will have noticed from the business statement, there will be opportunities for us to explore Irish issues next week, starting on Monday when we shall debate the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001.
	I note the hon. Lady's request for a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on the new arrangements for responding to national crises. It is sensible that we should examine ways in which we can achieve an integrated, co-ordinated and prepared response, although we do not seek national crises. I note and log her request for a statement, but I would gently remind her that the first point she made was that she did not want a statement on Monday. As always, I have to balance the requirement of the House for a statement with the wish to protect the business of the House.

Michael Jabez Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for being so effective after my intervention yesterday afternoon when he was carrying out his caretaker role. I asked for an early decision on the Hastings bypass, and it was made at about 12.30 pm today. Unfortunately, it was the wrong decision. [Interruption.] It may be amusing, but not for my electors in Hastings and Rye, who are devastated by the decision not to proceed. Despite unanimous support from the local council, the county council and the south-east region, the Government have made a different decision. Can we have an early debate on the matter so that the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions can explain how it could have overlooked the poverty of my constituency, which includes the 28th poorest town in Britain, local democracy and overwhelming public support for the bypass, and reached the wrong decision? When will such a debate be possible?

Robin Cook: I promised my hon. Friend an early decision, and he got one. However, as he knows, the Hastings bypass has been a contentious matter. All the evidence collected at the public inquiry and the expression of public opinion did not point in one direction. I regret that the outcome disappoints my hon. Friend, but it is in the nature of public inquiries that pleasing both parties is often impossible.

Paul Tyler: On the subject of the treatment of Government Back-Bench Members, I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the leading article in today's Evening Standard. It states that the names of some Labour London Members of Parliament have been attached to a motion in support of public-private partnership for the tube, apparently without their approval. Will he urgently investigate that serious matter, which pertains to the respect of the House for its Members and vice versa, as well as to the respect of Government for their Back Benchers?
	Will the Leader of the House consider the way in which effective opposition to the Government is provided largely from the Government Back Benches as well as from the Conservative Back Benches and the Liberal Democrats? Will he particularly examine the way in which Opposition Front-Bench Members are financed? In the provisional business last week, he announced that the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001 would be considered next week. It includes an increase in the amount paid by the taxpayer to the Conservative leader in the House of Lords to £60,961 and to the Conservative Chief Whip in the House of Lords to £56,224. Will that be backdated now that the increase will be postponed until October?
	Will the Leader of the House take into account the fact that those increases are on top of the considerable sum already paid to the leader of the Conservative party? I presume that that is why five people are still interested in that ludicrous job. The Conservative party leader receives £63,000 and the Conservative Chief Whip receives £35,500, although he cannot control his Back-Bench Members. In view of the total disarray on the Conservative Benches, does the Leader of the House believe that taxpayers are getting good value for money?

Robin Cook: The statement on the London tube was an initiative by London Members, not the Government. Any Member who feels misrepresented will have plenty of opportunities to make that clear. We welcome support for a proposal that will enable investment of £13,000 million to proceed. That will provide a basis on which commuters and travellers on the London tube will have trains that run on time, new, more comfortable trains and cleaner stations. Those are important gains, which will be secured without changing London Underground's responsibility for managing, running and ensuring the safety of the service.
	The hon. Gentleman tempts me sorely to comment on value for money considerations, for not only the tube but Opposition Front-Bench Members. However, the increases that he mentioned follow from previous references to the Senior Salaries Review Body. As I said recently when we debated pay and rations, I believe that our pay and increases should be independently assessed. Once that has happened, we should accept the assessment.

Kevin Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend know that a public inquiry is about to start into the proposed development of an international airport on the former RAF base of Finningley in Doncaster? Does he know that the main objector is Manchester Airport plc, which also owns Humberside airport and East Midlands airport? Does he believe that it is right and acceptable that a company owned by council tax payers in one region is trying to thwart regeneration in another region? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to hold an investigation into the use of public funds?

Robin Cook: It certainly would be a matter of legitimate public concern if public funds rather than proceeds of the trade of the airport were to be used in such ways. Having said that, I was asked that very question yesterday and I responded by assuring the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is considering ways in which he can expedite the public inquiry. The best way forward is to have a public inquiry during which all interested parties can express their views. I am sure that my hon. Friend will robustly express the views of his constituents.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House, bearing in mind his interview in The Times today, which tells us how he will take Parliament more seriously, arrange for an explanation to be given to the House as to how a Minister recommended approving a code on Tuesday evening, with the House approving it in a Division yesterday afternoon, while, at the same time, the Department for Education and Skills was withdrawing it?

Robin Cook: I see no conflict whatever between what I have said about modernising the House and improving scrutiny. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has responded to criticism and to concern, which was expressed from the Opposition Front Bench only 10 minutes ago. I think it absolutely right and proper that she should listen to those representations and consider them.

Geraldine Smith: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding an early debate on the recent report "Sea Changes", which has been produced by the seaside resorts taskforce? That fine report contains excellent recommendations for seaside towns. There is so much concentration on rural tourism at present—I am equally concerned about it, as I represent a rural constituency—but it is important that we do not forget the seaside resorts and the problems that they have faced over the years. I would welcome an early debate on that.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point, and makes it with force on behalf of the constituency that she represents in the House. It is important that we consider all the significant elements of the tourism industry and all the different communities that depend on it. One of the obvious lessons of the past few months is that decline in tourism in one part of Britain can affect tourism in the other parts, as many of those who take holidays use more than one centre.
	I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who will want to reflect on how we ensure that we have a balanced tourism policy that covers those seaside resorts that find it a challenge to maintain their tourism industry in the modern world.

Julian Lewis: Given that, since the general election, the axe has fallen on a Foreign Secretary who believed in Europe, a junior Home Office Minister who believed in telling the truth about a telephone call from a senior Cabinet Minister and two independent-minded Select Committee Chairmen who believed in doing their job—holding the Government to account—is there anything that anyone can believe in under the aegis of this Government without facing the sack?

Robin Cook: I note that the motion on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that we shall debate on Monday includes the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), whom I seem to remember being, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, a vigorous teller of the truth. My hon. Friend will recall many exchanges and his survival is a clear example of the Government's commitment to open scrutiny.
	I note also that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is again on the Select Committee on Health—he was robust and vigorous in his scrutiny in that Committee in the last Parliament—and that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has been appointed to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. [Interruption.] Well, he is on the list for approval by the House on Monday and I have no intention of moving an amendment to his inclusion or that of either of the other two. My hon. Friend has distinguished himself by his outspokenness since the general election and the House can take confidence from that. The Government are committed to having successful Committees carrying out scrutiny.

Andrew MacKinlay: May we have a free vote on the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001? Some of us have a constitutional objection to the growing disparity between Back Benchers' and Ministers' salaries. It is unhealthy, and discourages principled resignations.
	My right hon. Friend's suggestion, canvassed in The Times today, that Chairmen of Select Committees should receive salaries might commend itself to us, provided that the anointing of Chairmen was not at the disposal of Government Whips.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend has fully lived up to my expectations.
	The proposal for payment for Select Committee Chairmen has been made from within the House on a number of occasions. It was made by the Liaison Committee in the last Parliament, and was made again in the report of the Hansard Society, whose conference I shall address later today. It is not unproblematic. One of the principles that we have advised the SSRB to follow is that all Members except Ministers should receive the same pay; but we should examine the proposal, if there is support for it, and refer it to the SSRB for its consideration and advice.
	As for ministerial salaries, my hon. Friend is wrong about the widening of the gulf: proportionately, it remains the same. Nevertheless, I look in hope towards the day when my hon. Friend will be in a position to carry out a principled resignation.

George Young: We have heard that the Prime Minister has set up a crisis management unit to scan the horizon for political black clouds. Have those sharp-eyed folk focused on next Monday's business? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the risks of trying to compress into a fairly short debate the vital issue of how the House is to hold the Government to account—a process made more necessary by what was done in the last Parliament? If he really wants to put an end to cynicism in the political process, could he not give a lead by voting for the reinstatement of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions?

Robin Cook: As I have said, Monday's debate will mark the first occasion on which we have discussed such nominations in prime time rather than in the small hours. That is a major gain for the House, as I hope Members will recognise.
	It is important for us to complete Monday's business, so that the Select Committees can meet next week and decide on their business priorities before the recess. I gave the House that commitment, and I am delivering on it. The specific membership of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee is a matter for the House. As I have promised, there will be a free vote for members of the Government as well as Members of the House.

Ivan Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an early debate on the criteria for the selection of successful bids under the Government's regeneration schemes—which, I must say, are very good schemes? Jaywick Sands, in my constituency, has 2,000 residents, 81 per cent. of whom live in households without a wage earner. They are living in 1930s holiday homes made of wood, and they are desperate for help. There are no proper roads in the area, and there is no proper street lighting and no proper drainage.
	The residents have applied for neighbourhood renewal, and have been told that they do not meet the criteria. They have applied for help under the new deal for communities, and have been told that they do not meet those criteria either. They have applied for neighbourhood management, whose criteria they did meet, but they have just failed again.
	What my constituents now want is not to know when the next round of bids will be presented, but when they will receive the support that they desperately need from the Government.

Robin Cook: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the regeneration scheme. He has put with force and clarity a case in his constituency in which renewal and regeneration are plainly needed. I shall happily draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and will invite him to consider with my hon. Friend whether there is any problem with the criteria that is causing the difficulty.

Alex Salmond: I am trying to reconcile the stunning words of the Leader of the House about Select Committees in The Times with the shambles that he will preside over next Monday. Can he honestly tell the House from the Dispatch Box that Labour Members have not been removed from the Whips' nominations because of their independence of mind and spirit? Secondly, can he explain how the system can possibly be fair to minority parties when they have no representative on the Committee of Selection and the party that is meant to represent them, the Liberal Democrat party, blatantly pursues its own interests with no consultation in order to substitute its Members for those in other minority parties?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into far too hot water when he asks me to intervene between other parties and the Liberal Democrats. That is a matter for them to resolve between themselves. It has been a long-standing convention for the Liberal Democrat party to represent the interests of itself and other minority parties. It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to resolve with the Liberal Democrat party. I cannot intervene—

Alex Salmond: It is the right hon. Gentleman's job.

Robin Cook: No it is not my job to run the Liberal Democrat party, nor do I aspire to it.
	On Monday the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to comment on the list and on any unsatisfactory treatment of his or another minority party. Indeed, if he wishes, he may comment on what he regards as unsatisfactory treatment of any Labour Member.

Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on our architectural heritage? This year's English Heritage buildings at-risk register includes the Mechanics' Institute in my constituency. The building was once glorious. The people of Swindon used to learn there, spend leisure time and court each other there. It is now in total disrepair. Last year English Heritage found only £5.7 million in grant aid towards 98 buildings on that register. To put right all the buildings which will be found in many hon. Members' constituencies £400 million is required. May we have a debate so that we can all put our heads together and see what money can be found, so that these precious buildings, loved by so many of our constituents, can be preserved for the future?

Robin Cook: I am familiar with the building that my hon. Friend mentions. I have passed it on many occasions. I fully agree with her on its importance not merely as part of our architectural heritage, but as part of Britain's wider cultural heritage. My hon. Friend drew attention to the funds available for these buildings. I do not disagree that those funds are stretched, given the large number of buildings concerned. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will have heard what she said. My hon. Friend may wish to pursue this with the Department.

Douglas Hogg: May we have an early debate to discuss the failures of the health service in Lincolnshire? Is the Leader of the House aware that my constituents have to wait 68 weeks for an appointment with a consultant neurologist at Pilgrim hospital, Boston? Is he further aware that my constituents in and around Sleaford cannot get on to national health service dental panels, so cannot get NHS dentistry? Is he further aware that my constituents suffering from multiple sclerosis cannot get beta interferon? Is not that a scandal and should not the Government now be held to account for their failure?

Robin Cook: I am delighted to inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that not only have waiting lists fallen by 125,000 in the past four years, but waiting times have also fallen. I am sure that he will wish to express full support for our NHS plan which proposes to cut the average waiting time of 13 weeks for an out-patient appointment.
	I am rather surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have the gall to complain about the provision of NHS dentists. During the 18 years in which he supported a Conservative Government the NHS dentistry service went through a massive reduction. This Government have increased the dentist panels and are looking for an increase in and return to NHS dentists across the land in the way that should have been maintained under the Conservative Government.

Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on early-day motion 93?
	[That this House is concerned that Financial Services Authority research proves that nearly five million endowment policies may not grow sufficiently to repay their mortgages; regrets that only 10,500 people have been compensated out of at least three million who were mis-sold endowments 'guaranteed' by salespeople to pay off mortgages fully; and calls on the Government to instruct the FSA to launch a mis-selling inquiry funded by companies' shareholders and to write to those facing possible shortfalls with details of how to claim compensation.]
	It is about the plight of 5 million endowment policy holders whose endowments will not mature and pay off their mortgages, let alone pay the nest egg that they were promised by the sales people who made huge commissions. Only 10,000 of those 5 million people have been compensated. Can we ask the Financial Services Authority to send its leaflet advising on how to claim compensation to all those families who have received amber or red letters?

Robin Cook: All endowment mortgage holders should have been sent the FSA factsheet explaining the situation, and their right to complain and to take it forward if they are concerned. Indeed, I can confirm that the factsheet has been sent to a number of endowment mortgage holders because I received one myself.

Michael Jack: Today, the Home Secretary is meeting 80 chief constables to talk about ways in which the performance of the police service can be improved. Will the Leader of the House invite the Home Secretary to make a statement on those matters in the light of the disturbing headline in the Lancashire Evening Post on Wednesday 11 July:
	"Besieged police operators 'cannot cope' with 25,000 emergency calls each week."
	The police admitted that they have do not enough staff to man the 999 call system. In the same article, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who is in the Chamber, states:
	"Our area has been failed. The biggest complaints that people bring to me are that people can't get through to the police."
	This is a scandalous situation and it needs to be probed. The Home Secretary should come to the Dispatch Box and answer for it.

Robin Cook: I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that, come the autumn, there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss questions as to the competence of the judicial system and criminal procedures, because there will a number of pieces of legislation on those matters and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions.
	In the meantime, I am pleased to tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that he can take encouragement from the fact that in the past year, for the first time in a decade, which also embraces the period when his party was in office, we have seen a reversal of the decline in police numbers. Police numbers went up by 1,350 in the past year. I am even more pleased to tell the House that the number of people being attracted into training for the police has gone up by 75 per cent., so we can look forward to a much greater increase in future years, which will assist with the problems that he identifies.

Vera Baird: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding an early debate on the wide implications of a recent Court of Appeal judgment? The court has decided that private trusts to which public tasks, such as care of the elderly and disabled, are transferred are not subject to the Human Rights Act 1998. Apparently, that is the case even though they are clearly carrying out functions hitherto undertaken by public authorities and are often subsidised by public funds. If there is to be a great increase in the use of private entities in public service delivery, will that not mean that our brand new, much-coveted human rights legislation will have less and less relevance to ordinary people?

Robin Cook: I am not aware of the judgment to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will happily inquire into it and ensure that she receives a response. Plainly we take pride in the fact that we introduced the Human Rights Act for Britain—

John Bercow: Ghastly!

Robin Cook: Obviously, not everyone agrees with us: in a sense, the hon. Gentleman's opposition fortifies me in the view that we were right to introduce the Act. We want to ensure that all citizens, whatever their condition and wherever they are, have proper and fair access to its remedies.

Eric Pickles: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to offer the House guidance about his views on Select Committees? Does he believe that they are a happy and convenient retirement place for sacked Ministers? Alternatively, does he believe that Select Committees perform a useful function in the House? If so, has he remonstrated with his Whips about the removal of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? If it is true that her removal was in order to get fresh blood into the Committees, does he recognise that there is more vitality running through the veins of the hon. Lady than many of the yes men and women with whom he seeks to replace her?

Robin Cook: I would not seek to differ from the hon. Gentleman in his description of the vitality of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. On his first point, I do not think that we should exclude the experience, energy and knowledge that those who have served in government can bring to the work of Select Committees. Indeed, I recall that when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government several of their former Cabinet Ministers also served on Select Committees. If I may so, I think that the then right hon. Member for Guildford, now Lord Howell of Guildford, performed well as the Chair of a Select Committee and served the House with distinction.

David Clelland: May we have an early debate on the implications of the Government's devolution policies on the structure of government in Whitehall? Surely it is no longer justifiable for Scotland and Wales to continue to have Secretaries of State representing their interests in the Cabinet, given that they have their own Parliament and Assembly. Does not that further disadvantage the English regions, which do not yet have an assembly, let alone a Cabinet member, to represent their interests?

Robin Cook: It is very important that the House and the Government should ensure that they have proper channels of communication to the devolved bodies. I have often found my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales to be of great value in ensuring that we work in partnership with the devolved organisations that represent the people of those two countries. I fully share my hon. Friend's concern to ensure that the north-east is fairly represented. That is why the Government have created the prospect of a regional assembly for the north-east and any other region that wishes to have one. That is the best way forward to ensure that the people of the north-east and other regions can have a direct say in who runs the local services that are directly relevant to them.

Charles Hendry: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement or an early debate on the measures to prevent a repeat of last year's floods in Sussex? Is he aware that when the House returns in October a full year will have passed since those devastating floods, which affected Uckfield, Buxted and Hellingly in my constituency alone, and that there is growing dismay and despair that no work has been carried out to prevent their recurrence? May we have a statement to discover why so little money has been spent and why it has taken so long for anything to be done?

Robin Cook: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate or a statement in the week that remains before the House adjourns for the recess, but I assure him that the Government will continue to function during the recess, that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to work and that I will ensure that they are aware of his concerns.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a regular debate, possibly yearly, on the work of delegations from the House to international bodies, which would allow them to report back to the House? I am a member of the delegation to the Council of Europe, which is not to be confused with the European Union. It is a completely separate organisation, with an important role as the parent body of the European convention on human rights. Our role on the delegation is multifaceted; we are ambassadors, diplomats and politicians, but most of all we are delegates from the House to that body, yet we never return here to report.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I am well aware of the excellent work done by the Council of Europe. Since the collapse of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war, the Council of Europe has played a very important part in encouraging and supporting the countries of central and eastern Europe into democracy and adopting the important principles of freedom and human rights, in all of which it can take a lot of credit. I shall reflect on what my hon. Friend says, but I am reluctant to make a commitment to hold further annual debates, which already reduce the flexibility of the House to carry out its important business of scrutinising the Government. However, there may be ways—for example, in Westminster Hall—in which we can allow those involved in the Council of Europe to report, and it is right that they should have an opportunity to do so.

Evan Harris: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that last week the House voted by a margin of 289 to 33 to instruct the trustees of the parliamentary pension scheme—a statutory scheme—to extend bereavement benefits to unmarried couples, including same-sex couples: indeed, he supported that decision. Has he held any discussions with colleagues about how other public sector statutory pension schemes such as those for NHS staff and teachers, which do not offer those benefits, can be amended to ensure that those benefits are available? I think that he will recognise that less well-paid people will not understand how Members of Parliament and Ministers can vote for those rights for their bereaved partners, yet prevent those benefits from being made available to public servants in the teaching profession, the NHS and other professions.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman invited the House to vote for that measure, and I was very pleased to support him. He should not therefore now criticise those who supported him in that vote. I have not had an opportunity to pursue this point with the trustees, and the House will be aware that other issues that arise from last Thursday also engage me. However, I hope that the trustees will be able to reflect on the will of the House and develop the means by which it can become part of the Commons pension scheme. Once they have done that, it may be possible to learn lessons elsewhere, but the first step must be to interpret the decision that the House has taken and to put it into practice.

Alan Hurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the unfortunate consequences that flow from the European Community's personal protective equipment directive? I raise the issue because my constituent, Mr. Lindsell, suffered a severe accident in 1979, as a result of which he has to wear specially adapted industrial boots. Hitherto, those boots were adapted in the local hospital for his particular needs, but since the directive came into force there has been some uncertainty about whether that is still lawful. I have been in correspondence with our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health for more than a year but I have received no satisfactory response on this issue. Will my right hon. Friend agree to an early debate to consider this important question?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a constituency case that is of great importance to him and to his constituent. My hon. Friend should be congratulated on pressing vigorously and openly on the Floor of the House the claims of his constituent. I will happily draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and shall invite him to consider further the correspondence.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Minister—the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), I believe—to come to the House to make a statement on the working of the emergency business rate relief scheme that resulted from the outbreak of foot and mouth? My area of Macclesfield is the only borough in Cheshire not to be eligible for the relief, which is causing great unhappiness and anger among retail businesses, hotels, pubs and other outlets that tourists and visitors normally frequent and patronise. Those businesses are in grave financial difficulties and it appears to be an anomaly and an injustice that an area that is 90 per cent. rural and agricultural and has a population density that meets the criteria should not be eligible for emergency business rate relief.

Robin Cook: I know that my right hon. Friend continues to keep the working of the scheme under review. It has been in operation for only a few weeks, so it must be kept under review. I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to imagine that a scheme that was devised to provide assistance to the countryside is one that we can readily apply to an urban area, even if it is surrounded by countryside. None the less, I shall happily draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.

John Smith: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of yet another tragic and premature death. A woman in Scotland died from deep vein thrombosis after recently travelling on an aircraft. Given the growing public concern about the incidence of this condition and the apparent unwillingness of airline companies to carry out proper research into the matter, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate in the House on the subject? We do not definitely know whether the condition affects just a handful of people or is of epidemic proportions, so does he now think that we should have a public inquiry into the matter?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue that concerns many air travellers. I am not immediately persuaded that a debate in the House would necessarily throw further light on the scientific issues involved. I welcome the fact that the airlines are now providing considered advice on how people can avoid deep vein thrombosis when flying. It is in the airlines' interests, as well as those of their passengers, that there is confidence in the use of the airlines.

Paul Goodman: The right hon. Gentleman did not confirm that the Prime Minister will come to the House next week to make a statement on Northern Ireland. Given the gravity of the situation, does he not agree that despite the burdens on the Prime Minister's time it is right for him to make such a statement before the recess? Will he guarantee that his right hon. Friend will do that?

Robin Cook: I have been very careful not to anticipate the outcome of the talks, which recommence tomorrow. I remind the hon. Gentleman that twice next week we will debate Northern Ireland orders and the Prime Minister will, of course, be answering questions in the House on Wednesday.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on the introduction of free school meals for youngsters whose families receive the working families tax credit?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend proposes an extension of the working families tax credit, which has been a very successful scheme. For many low-paid households, it has provided an additional £20 to £30 a week. That has made a real difference to those families and the standard of living of their children. The policy is consistent with our commitment to lift another 1 million children out of poverty, as we did in the last Parliament. I would be much more comfortable with our continuing that strategy of lifting children out of poverty than reverting to means-tested benefits, which would keep them trapped in poverty. Let us work on our strategy to ensure that we end child poverty within a generation. That has to be right and it is one of the most important priorities for Britain.

John Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions make a statement to the House next week on the Government's decision on the proposed development of a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport? Is he aware that with every week that passes its competitive advantage over gateways such as Charles de Gaulle and Schipol is being eroded? The Government have no excuse for procrastinating any longer.

Andrew MacKinlay: They should reject it, but they will not.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend helpfully makes it clear that there is more than one view on this matter, and I am grateful for that observation. [Interruption.] Indeed, it was a clear bid for a job.
	My right hon. Friend has to proceed with care. He has a quasi-judicial capacity that is open to judicial review, so I would not want to press him to cut corners or act hastily. He will certainly reach a considered and careful conclusion that reconciles the differing views as best it can.

John Cryer: May we have an urgent debate before the recess on the public-private partnership that is being foisted on the London tube? It is not a proper partnership but the backdoor privatisation of chunks of the tube, which involves breaking up the network in a way that could be deeply dangerous to the travelling public, many of whom are my constituents. The Minister for Transport should come to the Dispatch Box before the recess and tell us what he is playing at.

Robin Cook: The Government would very much wish to find a way to make progress as fast as possible. That is why we have asked London Underground to enter into negotiations with the bidders. I stress that the proposals will leave London Underground managing and running services. It will be responsible for safety and will manage an integrated service.
	My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the Health and Safety Executive has a double lock on the safety of the proposals. First, it will report, probably by the end of the month, on the safety of the package; secondly, it will report, probably towards the end of the year, on the safety of each contract as it proceeds. I urge him to reassure his constituents that the safety issues are a priority for the Government and are fully safeguarded in the plans for the tube.

Anne McIntosh: One of the national crises that the Government are dealing with is that of foot and mouth. A week ago today we had our first case in Vale of York and we now have five. North Yorkshire, with 107 cases, is the third worst affected county. What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give that the issues that we have raised with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be responded to before the recess? Will the problems that may arise should the epidemic escalate—it is clearly not under control—be brought to the attention of the Department and the Government during the recess?

Robin Cook: I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that during the recess she will have plenty of opportunities to raise the matter with Ministers.

Anne McIntosh: The House will not be sitting.

Robin Cook: The House may not be sitting, but I can assure her that my colleagues at DEFRA will continue to work on foot and mouth through the recess, and I am sure that she will find ways to communicate with them, even though she will be unable to attend the Chamber.
	The hon. Lady has a point when she says that we are not yet at the end of the outbreak. That is why we have continually stressed that it is important that everybody, including the farming community, take all possible steps to make sure that the biosecurity mechanisms are in place and are observed. We have made good progress. There are now half a dozen or fewer new cases a day, which is a big improvement on the 40 to 50 cases a day that were confirmed at the height of the epidemic.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be all too aware that on Tuesday BAE Systems announced that 1,150 jobs will be lost on the Clyde and in Barrow. Scotstoun, the biggest yard on the Clyde, will bear the brunt of the losses. Will he call an urgent debate, not only on the Clyde but on shipbuilding in the country as a whole?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue for his constituents and the wider Scottish public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement to the House earlier this week, which has increased the orders available to the yard and, in the longer term, should provide security of employment on the Clyde. We are disappointed about, and very much regret, the short-term situation in which there will be a number of lay-offs on the Clyde. I assure my hon. Friend that the Scottish Executive and the Employment Service are fully engaged in trying to find ways in which they can meet the needs of those facing redundancy.
	I cannot offer my hon. Friend a debate before the House rises next week because of the pressure of business, but I assure him that Ministers, both here and in the Scottish Executive, are following the matter very carefully.

Graham Brady: In the light of the concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about Government interference in the appointment of Select Committee Chairmen, may I remind the Leader of the House about the scandal of the last Parliament in which the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance" was never subject to a free vote in the House? Will he make time available now for the House to express its views, on a free vote, on that vital report?

Robin Cook: I am not sure that I see the way forward as reverting to a vote on the document from the last Parliament, as the Liaison Committee itself may well have a different composition in this Parliament. [Interruption.] It is perfectly true, and unless we make it a rule of the House that the Chairmen of Select Committees never change, that is bound to follow. However, I have already indicated to the House that I want to revisit some of the issues in the Liaison Committee report. I look forward to consulting and working with the new members of the Committee, and I intend on Monday to include the Modernisation Committee in the Committees that we set up. Among the issues that the Modernisation Committee should address are some of the recommendations in "Shifting the Balance".

Gordon Prentice: On that very point, on Monday we will agree the membership of the Select Committees for a full Parliament, and there is great disquiet among hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the Hansard Society about the way in which that will be done. Is there not a case for agreeing the membership of the Committees for, perhaps, 12 or 18 months, so that in the interim we could debate and vote on the second report of the Liaison Committee, "Unfinished Business", which was published in March but has never been debated or voted on? The way in which we appoint members of Select Committees is highly unsatisfactory. In the words of the Select Committee, the
	"present system for nominating members of Select Committees must be changed",
	so why do we not do so?

Robin Cook: I have said to the House before, and I am happy to repeat it for what I think is the fourth time, that I am very willing to examine the process of appointment to Select Committees when we return in the autumn, when the Liaison Committee has been set up and when we have a Modernisation Committee to consult. However, I have also stressed to the House that to meet the genuine will of the House that the Select Committees be up and running before the summer recess, there is no alternative but to act under existing Standing Orders and procedures. Members on both sides of the House urged me to get the Select Committees in being before the recess, and we have delivered on that: the Committees have been set up faster than in any previous Parliament. I could not have done that and at the same time reformed the process.

John Bercow: Further to the highly pertinent inquiries of my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I appeal to the Leader of the House to reconsider and to facilitate a full day's debate next week on the operation of Select Committees. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that such a debate would allow scores of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to testify to their belief that the contribution of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has always been marked by intellectual rigour, devotion to the House and an unfailing readiness to stand up to the motley crew of third-raters who dominate the Government? Why does he not accept that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use temperate language.

John Bercow: That was temperate language.

Mr. Speaker: It might be temperate by the hon. Gentleman's standards, but not by mine.

Robin Cook: I was just going to say that by his standards the hon. Gentleman's mode of expression was very moderate.
	For half a day in prime time on Monday the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to expatiate at length on the issues he raises. I understand that two and a half hours might not be long enough to exhaust his rhetoric, but it ought to be long enough for the House to have a considered debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reference has been made in business questions to terminal 5, in which I have a direct constituency interest. Both the previous Speaker and you have made it clear to the Government that any announcements about major decisions should be made on the Floor of the House. Will you express your view that an announcement on such a major issue as this should be made on the Floor of the House rather than during the recess?

Mr. Speaker: My view is that at all times when Parliament is in Session Ministers should endeavour to get to the House to make statements. However, we are talking about a three-month recess and it would be unfair of me to say that no statement should be made by any Minister during the recess.

Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you take a look at the question of ministerial accountability in the context of answering for London Underground? I fear that, come the autumn, Ministers will not answer questions or appear at the Dispatch Box in respect of London Underground, but will say instead that the private infrastructure companies that they set up are responsible for maintenance, London Underground is responsible for operations and Transport for London is responsible for policy, yet their fingerprints will be all over—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to extend business questions.

Harry Cohen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows how to take up such matters, even during a parliamentary recess.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The better regulation task force today issued a report condemning the role of the regulatory system, but that report is available in neither the Vote Office nor the Library. Will you look into the omission?

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

Post-16 Education

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) to move the first motion, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Theresa May: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the importance of post-16 education in schools and colleges, in offering new opportunities to young people and in improving the nation's skills base and international competitiveness; regrets the hasty introduction of the new AS levels, which has resulted in organisational chaos for schools, a reduction in extra-curricular activities and had a severe effect on the lives of young people; considers that the interim response of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Government on this issue is inadequate; recognises the important role played by further education colleges in providing opportunities for young people and widening participation; deplores the current low pay, status and morale of further education lecturers; condemns the Government's failure to meet its targets for expansion of further education student numbers; and urges the Government to retain the financing of school sixth forms in the schools sector, address urgently the problems in the further education sector and reconsider the spectrum of qualifications post-14.
	No one who in the past year has had any contact with students in year 12—the lower sixth form—in any of our schools or colleges, or with their parents or teachers, can be in any doubt about the impact of the introduction of AS-levels on those young people. There are increased work loads, more stress, fewer study periods and fewer extra-curricular activities. Those pupils have been guinea pigs throughout their school careers, and will continue to be so into year 13, with the new A2s. They deserve our thanks, and I offer my best wishes and support to all who have been sitting AS-level examinations this year.
	It is important that we conduct the debate on the future of the AS-level in a way that does not leave the young people involved feeling that the qualifications that they have received are in any sense to be discounted. It is also vital that the Government, working with higher education institutions, ensure that the problems surrounding those examinations do not impact on the future academic opportunities and careers of those students.
	AS-levels and key skills were introduced with the best of intentions: to broaden the curriculum offered to young people post-16. However, there was too little time for their introduction. Examinations boards complained that they did not have enough time to prepare the syllabus or materials; schools did not have enough time to prepare; timetabling was a nightmare.
	Most schools did not receive any extra funding for AS-levels. The Government announced more money, but schools said that local education authorities did not pass it on. LEAs said that the Government had not given them any extra money. Without the clarity of a national funding formula, who knows? All that most schools know is that they did not receive any extra funding. At a time of teacher shortages, more teaching hours were needed. In addition, of course, we still do not know how universities will view AS-level results.
	Far from broadening the experience of students at such an important time of development in their lives, the extra work load of the AS-level means that the very extra-curricular activities that used to provide breadth of experience, such as sports, drama, music and voluntary work, are being written out of school life in year 12 owing to lack of time.
	At last week's Education questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), quoted some head teachers as saying that they agreed with the AS-level. The quotations were from that day's edition of The Times, but he quoted somewhat selectively. He failed to quote, for example, Elspeth Insch, head teacher of King Edward VI Handsworth school in Birmingham—

John Bercow: A very good head teacher.

Theresa May: As my hon. Friend says, she is a very good head teacher. She said:
	"AS-level students have worked so hard they are shattered and have had little time for independent study, which is bad news . . . Exam papers were too variable in standards and exam time too short. It is yet another sign that the whole system is geared towards a mass dumbing-down."
	Rick Moore, an English teacher at Manor Park community school in Nuneaton, said:
	"AS levels put far too much pressure on a generation of schoolchildren who are already being examined to exhaustion."
	It is not only teachers who complain. Kate Dyer, a 17-year-old pupil at Rosebury school in Epsom, said:
	"I have taken four AS levels in design technology, art, maths and business and found the experience stressful and unnecessary. It has been a nightmare trying to cram the syllabus into four months so we could finish the course work by half time—in time to start the exams immediately afterwards."

Estelle Morris: Half term.

Theresa May: Half term; I am grateful to the Secretary of State.
	Kate Dyer continued:
	"Since last year I have felt as if I have been running flat out on a treadmill."
	Those were some of the quotations that the Under-Secretary did not cite in Education questions. He did refer to the entry in The Times of that day from Chris Henstock, the head teacher at Lutterworth upper school in Leicestershire. The Under-Secretary quoted him as saying:
	"Fundamentally I think the curriculum changes are a good thing—I have seen a lot more of my pupils doing a greater variety of subjects."—[Official Report, 5 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 395.]
	What the Under-Secretary did not say was that that head teacher went on to comment:
	"But I do believe there are less positive knock-on effects. For example, the community involvement programme we used to run has suffered as a result of the extra workload."
	If the Government are to treat young people fairly, they will have to recognise and address all those problems—far from being broadened, the curriculum for those young people is being narrowed—and not just the issues about which they, the Government, want to talk.
	There is no doubt that the Government's rush to get the reforms through is at the heart of all the problems. Young people, parents and teachers have suffered because the Government simply did not think things through or provide enough time for proper preparation. As John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said:
	"The introduction of the AS-level was a reform that we called for during the 1990s . . . Unfortunately, the implementation timetable has been rushed and this has left inadequate time for examination boards and schools to put the reforms in place".
	The current problems are not an inevitable result of reforms to widen the variety of post-16 academic experience, but are the direct consequence of the over-hasty manner in which the Government rushed into reform. While we welcome the setting up of a review of the crisis, from the first interim report it appears that the Government have not learned the lessons of the past. Their response so far merely addresses one part of the problem.
	We shall of course wait for the full Qualifications and Curriculum Authority report that will appear towards the end of the year, but I was concerned about the Secretary of State's attitude when she talked about the matter in her interview on the "Today" programme. Despite the fact that students interviewed before her said that the main problem facing them was the increased work load throughout the year, she insisted to John Humphrys that the key issue was the timetabling of exams.
	We are used to a Government who are out of touch with what happens in schools and refuse to listen properly to what teachers and others are telling them. I had hoped for the sake of young people that this Secretary of State would be different; sadly, it seems she is not. It is vital that the Government do not regard the recommendations of the first report as a panacea for all the problems encountered in the new system; indeed, there may be further problems.
	Yesterday, the Leader of the House said that he was not in a position to give a guarantee to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that all AS-level results would be published as intended on 16 August. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), refused to answer the same question a week ago. With some estimates suggesting that exam boards are short of 1,000 exam markers, that is causing concern to parents and students. I hope that, in her response this afternoon, the Secretary of State will give the House a guarantee that all AS-level results will be published on 16 August. But we need to go further, as the question is not simply about how many exam papers the students should sit at one go, which is what the Government have addressed so far. The real question is whether the interim exam is needed or whether it is an exam too far.
	For a long time, I have been a strong advocate of the gold standard of A-levels. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] So are some of my hon. Friends, from the sound of it. In a world where young people will be expected to be more flexible in their working lives, we need to look at whether further breadth is necessary. Whatever the exam structure, maintaining standards of academic excellence and rigour is important, and we should be able to point to those exams as a gold standard of such qualities. However, we must also look at how much breadth is necessary. Some may say that I have been on quite a journey in coming to that conclusion. We should nevertheless root principles of excellence and rigour in our examination system and recognise that we should not support a system simply because it has always been a certain way. We must be willing to adapt to the needs and requirements of today's world.
	I hope that the Secretary of State is willing to initiate a proper national debate on our post-14 examination and qualification system, as we need to consider more than just AS-level exams. As well as AS-levels, we now have the new vocational GCSEs—GNVQs are now vocational A-levels—A2s, the new advanced extension awards or AEAs, world class tests, key skills and S-levels. A document provided by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service tries to explain the AS-levels. It explains that AS and A-levels will be graded and says:
	"Once sufficient units have been completed to constitute a qualification . . . candidates will be provided with a qualification result and an opportunity to decline certification at that point . . . Candidates who have accepted an AS certificate can still resit AS units and the better result counts towards the full Advanced GCE, but in such circumstances candidates will not be issued with a new AS certificate. They can, however, resit all the AS assessment units, in which case a new AS certificate will be issued based only on their resits because the earlier AS assessment units are 'used up' for AS purposes by the act of the original AS certification."
	When the Secretary of State replies, I hope that she will feel free to explain that.

Julian Lewis: rose—

Theresa May: Perhaps my hon. Friend is about to explain it.

Julian Lewis: I cannot enlighten my hon. Friend on the difficulties either of the alphabet soup of examinations or of the quagmire of regulations that the Government are laying before the country.
	I am slightly troubled by a remark that my hon. Friend made earlier, and perhaps she will expand on it for my benefit and that of the House. If we are saying that we have something as a gold standard for excellence, and if we are saying also that we nevertheless want other examinations at a different standard for breadth, what was wrong with the system that we had before any of the new examinations were introduced? Those who were not particularly likely to shine academically were trained up vocationally in apprenticeships, rather than gaining paper academic qualifications at a lower level than the gold standard, and were more qualified.

Theresa May: I am happy to answer my hon. Friend. That is exactly the route down which we should be going; it is the very point that I was about to make. With all the present challenges, there is the danger that we end up with a pick-and-mix system of exam qualifications. There is a mish-mash of examinations, and no one knows what any exam qualification stands for or what the standard of the qualification is. AS-levels are in danger of falling between two stools. They are not providing breadth, and will possibly not provide the necessary academic rigour either.
	For those who are academically inclined, a gold standard of academic rigour is essential. It is essential also that we have proper vocational skills-based training for those for whom that is the right route through education. We need a proper review of qualifications post-14, so we can ensure that there is a structure that provides young people with qualifications that they and future employers understand, and in which they can have confidence. Merely tinkering at the edges, with AS-levels, will not do.
	The problems with AS-levels are not the only issue in post-16 education. As a matter of urgency, the new Secretary of State must give some form of assurance to schools with sixth forms that their budgets and their very existence are not under threat. The Government claim to be guaranteeing funds to school sixth forms, but they have been careful with their words. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the Government made the following statement on school sixth-form funding:
	"all school sixth forms have a guarantee that their funding will not fall below the funding level of 2000–01 in real terms, provided their sixth form numbers do not fall".—[Official Report, 9 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 389W.]
	What happens if numbers in 2002–03 are below those in 2001–02, but above those in 2000–01? We all know that sixth form numbers do not come in neat little packages. Numbers change over the years. That is not because of the inability of schools to attract sixth formers, but simply because the cohort coming through in any one year might be smaller than previous cohorts.
	What will happen to schools if they lose a significant number of their students? On what basis will they then be funded? Schools are asking the Government what number of pupils the Secretary of State thinks a sixth form needs if it is to be viable. Numbers have been bandied around by the Department. I hope that the Secretary of State will be willing to put her neck on the line and tell us the number of pupils that she believes a sixth form should have if it is to be viable. If she does so, sixth forms will know whether they are under threat from the new process of closure set out in the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
	More pupils go on to further and higher education at schools with sixth forms. There is evidence that pupils attending schools with a sixth form do better in GCSEs than pupils at schools without sixth forms. We believe that the Government should be doing all that they can to support schools with sixth forms. They should recognise that school sixth forms are different institutions from further education colleges.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills said:
	"I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comparison between further education establishments and schools. In many ways, schools are different institutions with different problems."—[Official Report, 5 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 383.]
	But the similarity between school sixth forms and further education colleges is the very premise that underpins the Government's new funding arrangements. The Minister's words during Education questions last week led to concern in FE colleges, which thought that the Government were working on a system of convergence of funding. The Secretary of State should clarify the position for them today. What exactly do the Government want? Are they committed to convergence of funding? If so, when will that be achieved? Sixth form colleges also want reassurance that their funding is not under threat.
	Further education colleges deserve to know where they stand. They deserve support from the Government, not more uncertainty. Our FE sector is in dire straits, with a possible industrial dispute later this year arising from the real problems that lecturers have, given the low pay in FE. Indeed, a complaint that I often hear from FE college principals is that lecturers are leaving FE to achieve higher salaries in secondary schools. That speaks volumes.
	One of the problems that FE colleges face is the way in which the Government choose to fund them. The Government claim that they have put more money into FE, but as the colleges point out, the bulk of that funding is not available to colleges to use as they wish. It is earmarked funding for Government-identified purposes. The real-terms index of participation funding—the core funding for FE colleges—having stood at 100 back in 1995-96 has now fallen to 91.
	For earmarked funds, money is linked to meeting targets. Failure to meet any one of those targets means that none of the extra money comes through, so a college could meet a target for increasing numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds, but if it missed its target for increasing numbers in adult education, it would not get money for increased numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds either.
	The colleges' problems do not stop there. Money has been allocated for the teachers' pay initiative to recognise the problems caused by the threshold payments in schools. The allocation was due to be received on 1 April. To date, no college has received any of that money. What will happen to TPI funding after year 3? Will it be consolidated? What about the support staff, who in most colleges make up 40 to 50 per cent. of the staff? Many colleges find that it is difficult not only to get lecturers, but to find support staff as well.
	Colleges were concerned about the new structure of funding through the learning and skills councils, and the evidence shows how right they were. The Learning and Skills Council has still not settled the mainstream funding allocations for FE colleges for the next academic year, which starts in three weeks, so they face funding uncertainty and a real-terms cut in core student funding.
	The Government make much of their target of expanding numbers in FE by 700,000 by 2002–03, but the number of students in FE has fallen by 189,000 under the Labour Government. Yet again, the Government are failing to deliver. The FE sector is an important part of our education system. It offers opportunities to young and old and it deserves to be treated better than it has been by the Government. Welcomed freedoms have been restricted; funding is more complex; training opportunities are being denied. A sector that should be a major part of any agenda to widen participation is under siege from the Government. It deserves to be treated fairly, as an integral part of our education system.
	The Government have failed to deliver on post-16 education. They have plunged the exam system into chaos, failed to guarantee the future of school sixth forms, and presided over a staffing crisis, a crisis of morale and a fall in student numbers in further education. Far from widening participation and broadening opportunities post-16, Labour in government, with its utilitarian attitude to education, is reducing the opportunities for young people to benefit from a truly broad range of educational experience post-16.
	We are in danger of seeing young people forced into an identikit mould of the Government's choosing. The Government will be judged in this term not just on the numbers, but on the provision of choice, the standards of qualification and the quality of education post-16. On the evidence of the past few weeks, they will be seen to have failed to deliver.

Estelle Morris: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	'welcomes the Government's achievements in post-16 education which will drive up the nation's skills and extend opportunity for all; applauds the substantial extra resources secured for further education and the reforms through the Learning and Skills Council and rigorous inspection arrangements, which will radically improve standards and the guarantee to all sixth forms that their funding will be maintained in real terms if their pupil numbers do not fall; commends the broadening of the 16-19 curriculum which is widely supported and the timely and measured response of the Government to improve delivery in schools and colleges; welcomes the early success of the Connexions Service and of Education Maintenance Allowance pilots in encouraging more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay in full-time education after the age of 16, the extra resources secured for the university system and the expansion in the numbers of students in higher education; and endorses the strategy to reduce the number of adults lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills which will tackle a problem which has been neglected for far too long.'.
	Although I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate post-16 education, I must admit to being a little disappointed by the narrowness of the approach taken by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I thought that she might share with us her views about the 7 million adults who lack basic literacy and numeracy skills, and about plans to deal with that problem. I thought also that she might at least express concern about the fact that, although we have one of the best higher education services in the world, access to it from some sectors of our community is just not good enough. However, we heard none of that and nothing about diversity of further education.

Graham Brady: It is worse.

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman says that it works. That means that he is satisfied.

Graham Brady: rose—

Estelle Morris: I shall give way in a moment.
	The hon. Member for Maidenhead did not mention the fact that there are twice as many students from middle class backgrounds as from working class backgrounds in higher education. We have 7 million adults with no basic skills because the education system failed them in the past, as there was no planned way of improving their skills when they left school. We heard nothing from her about work-based skills and training, and the progress that can be made in that respect.
	The hon. Lady made three clear points to which I shall confine my remarks, so that I can respond properly to the debate.

Graham Brady: rose—

Estelle Morris: I should like to make some progress on AS-levels, but if the hon. Gentleman has a point of correction, I shall give way.

Graham Brady: The Secretary of State misheard my earlier remark. I said that the Government had made it worse, as they reduced access by taking grants away.

Estelle Morris: The last point is not true, but I suppose that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least raising some concerns about children getting into higher education—a matter that was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidenhead.
	Many of the hon. Lady's comments related to AS-levels. I am happy to say to the House what I said yesterday: this was not the best implemented set of curriculum reforms that has ever been introduced. She did not mention the tragedy of other major curriculum reforms that have not been well implemented. I cast my mind back to the national curriculum reforms of the 1970s and 1980s, when syllabuses were sent out to primary and secondary schools time after time. The schools bought books and trained teachers, but then had to start again. In the end, our good friend Lord Dearing was called in to try to make something out of the mess that the Conservative Government had created.
	I do not make those comments with any sense of pride. If we look throughout the education service—I am prepared to reflect on this matter—there must be something wrong with the fact that each of the major curriculum changes introduced in the past quarter of a century has not got it right first time. That is a lesson to reflect upon. It is with sadness that I admit that the introduction of the AS-level reforms last year did not do credit to anybody who had responsibility for their implementation.
	We must admit that fact and learn from it, but I want to go further. In arguing about implementation, it is the easiest thing in the world for the Opposition and opponents elsewhere to say, "You've got it wrong, so take responsibility; it is all no good." But, with respect, that achieves only the scoring of cheap political points. There is something fundamental that is more important. More than four years ago, in 1996, when the first look was taken at widening the post-16 curriculum, there was unanimity throughout our learning community on the view that our sixth-form curriculum was too narrow.
	I stand by that view. I think that we let down our sixth-form students. I have not moved from my belief that it is important to acknowledge that a narrow curriculum of three A-levels is insufficient to prepare our students for the world that they must enter. It is not only the Government who are expressing that view; I think that general agreement remains on the need for a broader post-16 curriculum.
	The saddest aspect of the hon. Lady's comments—I shall give way to her immediately if she was not saying this—was that, for the first time, she called into question the Opposition's support for a broader post-16 curriculum. Whatever the inadequacies of implementation in the past year, I would welcome her support for the view that a narrow curriculum of three A-levels is not sufficient and that we are right to keep to the drawing board. That includes, from this September, a commitment to the broader curriculum.

Theresa May: It is obvious from what the Secretary of State has just said that she did not listen to a word of my speech. I specifically referred to the issue of a broader curriculum. Having presided over the implementation of AS-levels, does she understand that students, as well as teachers, parents and the Opposition, say that the impact of AS-levels has been not to broaden the curriculum but to narrow it?

Estelle Morris: If we accept the need for a broader curriculum, we have two choices. Either we ask students to study more subjects in less depth or we accept that we are asking them to work harder. We asked them to work harder. The hon. Lady talked about the burden of work in the sixth form, and the fact that it had cut out a lot of extra-curricular activities. We want to keep the gold standard of the A-level. Everyone wants that: it is a good examination that gains credit with universities and employers and is respected throughout the world. If we are to broaden the post-16 curriculum while keeping the gold standard of the A-level, the bottom line is that we must ask students to study more, harder and across a greater breadth. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot broaden the curriculum and then turn round and say to students, "Hang on, you're working too hard."

Tim Boswell: rose—

John Bercow: rose—

Estelle Morris: I want to make some progress.
	Saying such things will not work. Last year, we told sixth-form students that we thought that they could cope with more studying and a broader curriculum in the first and second years of the sixth form.

Diana Organ: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Estelle Morris: I want to finish this point. Things went wrong because the assessment was organised in such a way that it disrupted the flow of learning and teaching.
	The hon. Member for Maidenhead mentioned my interview on the "Today" programme yesterday. I want to make two points. I think that the burden of assessment was too great. I also think that when assessment is too frequent during the school year, with the best will in the world, students stop studying and start to prepare for revision, and once they have had their assessment, they go over the papers again. The biggest complaint that I heard was not that students did not want to do more subjects, nor that they did not want a broad curriculum, nor that they did not accept that they could spend more time studying in the first year sixth, but that the flow of teaching and learning was interrupted by too frequent assessments.
	Our proposals, which will come in two stages, will show that we have addressed that problem. We want to make progress from this September because we want to ensure that students who are studying from next year have another option. Believe it or not, many students wanted to keep the end-of-module assessment and the January assessment but, for those who did not, there need be no reason to take assessments on any of their modules before the end of the first year sixth. Many schools chose that option last year, and many could have left their assessments until the end of the second year sixth—if, as I have to admit, the guidance from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and others had been clearer.
	The hon. Lady also asked about the interviews. Some students and teachers have said that the problem was not only the assessment but the prescription in the syllabuses, and that there was just too much to cover in the courses. I think that they are right about that in some subjects. Having spoken to David Hargreaves, the chief executive of the QCA, I understand that his impression, following his first review, was that that was the case in two subjects; the one that was cited to me was mathematics.
	It would have been foolhardy, after asking the QCA to look at the matter for three weeks, to say yesterday, "I announce that we are going to slim down all the programmes of study." The evidence from the three-week review did not suggest that that should be the case. I am happy to give the hon. Lady the acknowledgement that she asked for today. If she had read the report that was issued yesterday, and the Government's response to it, she would have seen that we have asked the QCA to look at the subjects slowly so that we do not rush things and have implementation next year as inadequate as it was this year. We have asked the authority to take its time and report in due course on whether some of the subjects were over-prescriptive. I acknowledge that some were, but it is not my instinct that every AS-level subject asks too much of students. We cannot say on the one hand that we are dumbing down and that we have lowered standards, and on the other that we have asked too much of students. Many mixed messages are being conveyed.
	Let me outline several important principles. The broader curriculum is necessary. It is not too much to ask of our sixth formers that they study more than three A-levels; it is important that they do. It is also important to keep the gold standard and the rigour. We have not done that properly this year, but we will improve next year. By the year after that, we will have totally revamped the assessment system. I am happy to state in the House, as I did in writing yesterday, that some study programmes that have been announced for syllabuses need reconsidering. However, although that applies to mathematics and one or two other subjects, it is not true of all subjects.

John Bercow: The recognition of error is welcome but belated. What does the Secretary of State say to my young constituent at Aylesbury high school, Emma Clark, who wrote to me on 12 June to say that the Government's handling of AS-levels was "a complete mess", and that the timing of the announcement of the review was "particularly insensitive"? She strongly objected to being sacrificed on the altar of political experimentation. In response to that hard-working and intelligent student, will the right hon. Lady personally apologise?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. Again, I say that the implementation of AS-levels was not as good as it should have been. How many times must I say that? If the young lady to whom he referred is 17, she was educated mostly under a Tory Government. If 17-year-olds have been guinea pigs since the age of five, I know who carried out most experimentation. It was not us.
	I do not believe that students who have just done their AS-levels have wasted their time to gain a worthless qualification that will not be respected by higher education and the outside world. I share that view with the hon. Member for Maidenhead, who began her speech well by congratulating and thanking those students. She said that the important message to them was that their studies in the past year were worth while and will be credited. I admit that I wish for Emma, as for the others, that life and the assessment had been easier in the past year. However, I always wish that policies could be implemented perfectly first time round. When we realised that the implementation was not perfect, we took action as speedily as possible.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Estelle Morris: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) first. Then I must move on because there is a danger of the debate becoming a discussion about AS-levels.
	Neither Conservative nor Labour Administrations should be satisfied with the history of curriculum implementation. I have therefore asked the QCA to consider the matter and ensure that we understand why the information was unclear, and not sent out in a timely fashion. The examination timetables were not organised to avoid clashes and schools did not have sample texts or examination papers in sufficient time. That was possible but did not happen.
	We have conveyed a clear message about what will happen in schools in September and beyond. We have to consider matters slowly and calmly and ensure that our education service is better able to implement curriculum change.

Diana Organ: What would my right hon. Friend say to further education lecturers and teachers in my constituency whom I met two terms after the introduction of the AS-level? They said that it was excellent, created good study habits and allowed students to progress to the gold standard of A2 because, in the important first two terms, the students were busy. They claimed that it did not have a detrimental effect on the retention rates of children in year 12.

Estelle Morris: I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend's constituents said. When there is a problem, the people who write in or complain tend to be those with an axe to grind. The irony of this brief consultation is that I received lots of heartfelt letters from educationists, students and parents who wanted to keep the thrust of the reforms. Equally, we received lots of letters from people who were unhappy with the implementation.
	The important point is that a lot of people out there think that the curriculum reforms have achieved a welcome widening of the curriculum, a greater retention rate and greater motivation; we do not want to lose that. Indeed, although I have mentioned the problems of end-of-module assessment, I also have a file of letters welcoming the ability to assess at the end of the module, because it motivates students. Some students need that recognition. They need to know how they stand at the end of the module, so that they can make an assessment and move forward. I do not want to take away from that and there is a real danger in the debate that we will lose sight of the problem that we want to address.
	Perhaps I am the one to say this in the House: someone who studies for A-levels but fails at the end of two years leaves school with no piece of paper or qualification to show for it. That happened to me. I did two years' study in the sixth form, but I did not manage to pass the end of term exam. Somewhere along the line, I probably did quite well in an essay or two, but I have no qualification or bit of paper that tells me that. The challenge that we face is to recognise that cohort of students and to ensure that their needs can be met as well. That, honestly, is what we have tried to do.

Anne Campbell: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Estelle Morris: I must make a last point, then I shall move on and say more about post-16 education.
	We have tried to provide flexibility, but the problem involves teachers, because they are hard working and always try to do their best for students. The real difficulty with the first year was that what was set out was a series of options: exams could be set in January, but need not; end-of-module exams could be taken, but need not. Too many teachers got the message that they would let down their students if they did not do every option. That is our fault for not being clear enough and for not giving teachers the confidence to read the regulations and guidance and choose the course most appropriate for their students. I have confidence that the guidance that we shall publish by September will give teachers that confidence.

Anne Campbell: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Estelle Morris: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), but I give notice that I shall not give way again for a good few minutes.

Anne Campbell: I want my right hon. Friend to deal clearly with the point, which was apparently made in The Times, that the Government are about to eliminate the January examinations. Concern has been expressed to me by one of my local sixth form colleges that that would disadvantage students who might want to resit in January. What are her plans?

Estelle Morris: We want the January examination to remain available, so there will still be the option of doing the January assessments. We want a diverse and flexible system that allows teachers and students to make decisions that suit them. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the thrust of the comments is that the January assessment came too early and that students had not settled down to sixth-form learning. Today, I have tried to send the message that the January assessment will remain an option, but to return to the point that I have just made, we would not usually expect students to have to be assessed until the end of the first year sixth. That strikes a balance of the comments that were made.
	I want to give the teaching profession and those aged between 16 and 19 the confidence to study the assessment options that we have given them and to make decisions in the light of their needs, knowing that those decisions will be recognised. Nobody will say that students are doing wrong if they do not take January assessments. Nobody will fault them for taking end-of-module assessments. Nobody will criticise them for leaving the assessments to the end of the two years, as some schools did. The irony is that those options were always available this year, but we did not get it right and we did not press that message sufficiently.
	From the debate so far, people might think that all post-16 learning takes place in colleges and schools and that it is all about AS-level.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Estelle Morris: No, no. In the remaining few minutes, I want to acknowledge other learning, other places of learning and flexible routes in post-16 education.
	We have talked a lot about the gold standard of A-level and the broader curriculum. Some students, including adults, do vocational work. I feel that we as a nation have never given vocational studies the esteem and recognition that they need. The Government have made a huge improvement in expanding modern apprenticeships, and giving them the status that they deserve. For the first time, students have a real opportunity to gain vocational GSCEs. That will feed into modern apprenticeships, vocational A-levels and a more flexible and all-embracing higher education sector that recognises vocational degree-level courses.
	If we can get this right—if, in years to come, we can stand up in the House and be as proud of the vocational gold standard as we are, rightly, of the academic gold standard—we will have gone some way towards being able to lay claim to an education system that teaches the basics well in primary schools, gives all our young people access to a broad and rich curriculum, and has the confidence to tell 14-year-olds, "We now want to tailor what we provide so it can meet the needs of you as individuals, which will offer you the opportunity to study in academic groups, vocational groups or both. Whichever option you choose will be given status and recognition, and you should be proud of your achievements, in whatever field they are made."
	We will go further. We will be able to tell those 14-year-olds that, regardless of which route they take, their learning will end not at 16 but at 19—and that, in a sense, it will continue throughout their lives. It will take place not just in schools but in high quality further education institutions, and in the best higher education universities that the world can offer. As for those who do not want to learn in any such institution, preferring to go to work or stay at home, we will give them the opportunities that they require.
	Only if we can offer that commitment will we have gone some way towards ensuring that we have the learning community and learning culture that we want, and that we have put learning at the centre of all that we do.

Phil Willis: We are grateful to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and her colleagues for raising this issue. I am usually not particularly generous to the hon. Lady, but I thought her speech struck many of the right notes. We have not tabled an amendment to the motion, because we think that many of the messages it conveys need to be debated and need a response.
	The hon. Lady will, however, not be surprised to learn that although many of her comments returned to familiar territory, I was surprised that her party had chosen to debate this matter. The debate may, of course, serve as a distraction from the Tory leadership contest—dubbed rather generously by yesterday's Mirror "the flight of the living dead"—or it may arise from a sense of guilt, and the acceptance of a chance to atone for past sins. If I may misquote Monty Python's "Life of Brian": after all, what did the Conservatives ever do for further education? The answer is "Very little".

Tim Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I want to make some progress first.
	The hon. Member for Maidenhead said twice that she considered further education to be an integral part of our education system, yet the Conservative party manifesto, which is only a month old, made no mention of it. The lack of any policy on FE meant that the 676,000 under-19s studying in FE colleges were totally ignored. Moreover, the manifesto featured no policy on adult learners, thus effectively ignoring 1.9 million such learners in those colleges. It is, in a way, quite a tribute to the Tories that they have managed to write off the 2.6 million learners supported by FE provision, and then criticise the Government for their lack of progress.

Tim Boswell: Now that the hon. Gentleman has finished his little soundbite, may I respond to his earlier rhetorical question? Will he reflect on the fact that the Conservative contribution to the expansion of FE, historically, was to increase student numbers by 3 million to 4 million? Had he been able to attend sittings of the Standing Committee considering the Learning and Skills Bill last year as assiduously as I did, he would have heard in some detail exactly what our concerns about further education were, and exactly what we proposed.

Phil Willis: If any of my remarks hit home on the Conservative Benches, they were not directed at the hon. Gentleman, whose record as a speaker on behalf of further education is impeccable. It is a great pity that the Conservatives did not consult him when they were writing their manifesto.
	May I finish my explanation? The manifesto does not mention the 250,000 college lecturers and the 200,000 support staff, either. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) requires a response to my question about what the Conservatives ever did for further education, and he is right: there were an extra 1 million students between the time of incorporation and the beginning of the Labour Government.

David Chaytor: What really happened, surely, was that there were 1 million extra enrolments, resulting entirely from changes in the funding methodology that increased the likelihood of individual students being enrolled for multiples of different courses. We are not talking about real people; we are talking about a change in the funding methodology.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, he has stolen the next part of my speech. Enrolments rose by some 33 per cent. during those years, but that did not equate to any increase in the number of full-time equivalent students. The figures often bandied about by Conservative Front Benchers are highly misleading.
	I return to my question about what the Conservatives did for further education. During the period of that 33 per cent. increase, funding for full-time equivalent students fell by 35 per cent., and 20,000 FE lecturers were effectively driven out. Today, however, we are hearing a defence that tells us that we must protect sixth-form funding in the traditional sense, but that it was perfectly all right to subject the whole FE student population to the regime introduced by the hon. Member for Daventry and now supported by the Conservative Front Bench.
	In considering FE issues we should look back to 1993 and incorporation, for most of the problems result from those days. I am thinking of indebtedness, a lack of capital investment, failure to invest in staff, pay differentials, "casualisation", franchising, over-complication of funding arrangements and a lack of strategic direction. Those problems typified further and post-16 education from 1993 onwards.
	A Labour Government came along in 1997 and instantly recognised the problems with post-16 learning. We saw the wonderful book "Learning Works" by Lady Kennedy, and also "The Learning Age—A Renaissance", which promised a new understanding and a new beginning. We saw the national skills taskforce reports and the Moser report, which highlighted unacceptable levels of skills, and in particular, unacceptable levels of adult numeracy and literacy. Sadly, however, there was no real response to any of those problems, only a structural reorganisation, with the creation of learning and skills councils. That was the net result after four years of the first Labour Government for some time.
	The Secretary of State's predecessor acquired a £6 billion central fund enabling him and his successors to do what they wanted in the FE sector. The Government introduced unprecedented levels of bureaucracy. Any FE college today will say that the arrangements involving the new Learning and Skills Council are horrendous because of the bureaucracy. We must look into that.
	We now have new inspection regimes. The first area inspections are just coming through, led by Ofsted which is clearly following the traditional Woodheadian pattern of highlighting the issues that the Government want raised. Not surprisingly, more colleges have failed those inspections since Ofsted came along. We must ask why. During the past four years, student-staff ratios have been unacceptable; they are now far higher than those to be found in the 14 to 16 sector in schools, and certainly higher than those in any sixth form. Again, that is unacceptable.
	The hon. Member for Maidenhead was spot on when she described how over the past few years college funding has been disguised. The previous Secretary of State made it clear that there has been an increase in funding from £3.13 billion in 1997 to £4.29 billion this year. We accept those figures; they are on the record. But starting from the level six years ago in 1995, that is pro rata funding. Despite the hype, and four years of a Labour Government, all that has been achieved is a return to 1995 levels of funding.
	If the special grants are stripped away—they are earmarked by the Secretary of State—

Estelle Morris: That is real money.

Phil Willis: Of course it is real money. I am not contradicting that. I have already admitted that to the Secretary of State, who is grumbling from a sedentary position. I am never dishonest with her, as she knows.

Tim Boswell: I suspect that it is my turn to agree with the hon. Gentleman for once. Does he accept that no responsible further education corporation can shell out pay increases on the basis of special grants that are subject to conditions that may vary from year to year, as opposed to an assured stream of core funding?

Phil Willis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is no different from what has happened under previous Labour and Conservative regimes, certainly since 1988. I will return to that specific point because it does need to be addressed. The ministerial team must put on the record their response to the appalling accusations in last night's debate and during Education questions last week.
	The real problem for colleges is that the level of core funding for addressing the issues that need to be addressed is decreasing. It is now 5 per cent. lower than when Labour came to power in 1997, and 10 per cent. below the magical 1995 figure. Although 96 colleges were facing bankruptcy in 1997, and one in three colleges has serious financial difficulties, colleges are having to bid for money. The money is targeted directly, and colleges cannot spend it as they want. Lecturers believe that a flood of money is coming into the colleges, and ask why it is not reflected in their pay scales. The colleges, the principals and the lecturers all feel let down.
	We accept that there is no way to satisfy the funding demands of any sector in education. Even if we Liberal Democrats were in power, we could not do that—but we would have a better stab at it because we recognise some of the problems. Given the growth rate of the Liberal Democrat party and the support for us in the country, it will not be long before we are sitting on the Government Benches.
	It is not surprising that in the first few weeks of a Labour Government there should be problems with the teacher unions over pay. Neither my party nor any political party should be involved in direct negotiations or in supporting strike action or any other action. Such matters are between employers and employees. Problems with the unions over funding in the post-16 sector were inevitable. We cannot have, on the one hand, the Government targeting funding, some of which cannot be spent on staff pay, and constantly looking for further efficiency savings, and on the other hand, college principals being allowed to negotiate openly on staff pay.
	Lecturers have delivered huge increases in productivity. Despite the appalling comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey) at Question Time last week about the quality of the courses and lecturers in the colleges, I believe that they are doing a substantial job in difficult circumstances. The lecturers' fight is not with the college principals; it is with the Government. The Government have created a funding system under which the colleges cannot meet the demands of their staff.
	It is all very well for Ministers to talk about professionalism and increasing skills and levels of participation. Those of us who have had any involvement in FE know full well that the most difficult group of young people to bring into college are those with no qualifications. They demand far more attention and time from staff, and far more resources. Yet they are the very group that is so grossly underfunded.
	How can the Secretary of State justify the 29 per cent. funding gap between a sixth form college delivering a three A-level package and a school sixth form? How can that be justified? Can she explain why a package of four AS-levels plus two A-levels in a school attracts average funding of £3,530 while exactly the same package in an FE college attracts £3,030—a difference of 14 per cent.? Is it any wonder that college lecturers are underpaid and under-resourced?
	I agree with the hon. Member for Maidenhead that we must not allow the introduction of learning and skills councils to lead to the underfunding of our sixth forms, as we all worried that it would during the passage of the Bill. We were promised a levelling-up, but exactly the opposite has occurred.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) handed me a letter this morning from her local sixth form college, Barton Peveril, which illustrates exactly what that means on the ground. It is a relatively small college with a relatively small budget, and because of the funding arrangements, it is £1.6 million less well off than a similar sized school. That is unacceptable, and when the Minister responds later, I hope that she will address that specific issue.
	Finally, I shall touch on two further issues. The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Maidenhead had a protracted debate over the AS-level debacle. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and comment on that. The Secretary of State admitted that mistakes had been made. That is an honourable position, and we, and most schools, will thank her for that admission. However, that was not what concerned me most. Having made mistakes—having considered the 16 to 19 age group in isolation from the 14 to 19 age group—does the right hon. Lady not agree that if we are to take up the challenge issued by the hon. Member for Maidenhead we need a comprehensive overhaul of the whole of that curriculum and qualifications structure? To tinker around with the post-16 sector without considering the rest is ridiculous. Back in the 1990s, Lord Dearing made a clear commitment to movement on that front.
	Surely the idea that there can be a review, but that we will retain the "gold standard" for A-levels irrespective of what comes up in it, must give the right hon. Lady cause for reflection. That would rule out the introduction of the baccalaureate as an alternative. It rules out the whole idea of considering a more appropriate way of delivering vocational education in schools and colleges.

Theresa May: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the sad things about the Secretary of State's response was that she completely failed to listen to my point about the need for a proper national debate on post-14 qualifications? A range of qualifications is available. We need to consider what is right for young people. This is not merely about tinkering around with the number of exams taken at AS-level.

Phil Willis: I confess that I agree with the hon. Lady—and I have made the same point. However, I hope that she agrees that we cannot say that we will reconsider the curriculum and qualifications for everyone apart from the relatively small group of students who do A-levels. The Secretary of State and I know that every year 10 per cent. of young people leave school with no qualifications—they simply drop out. Indeed, most of them have dropped out well before they get to the end of year 11. That is the reality.
	How do we keep those young people in the system? How do we create a curriculum and qualifications structure that not only brings them into schools but into colleges and onwards? That is why we must have a radical overhaul. If the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Government can actually agree on that, this debate will be momentous in relation to the next four or five years.

John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although there is undoubtedly a case for considering a broadening of the post-16 curriculum, it is essential that we at no stage devalue the academic content of what is undertaken simply to achieve the Government's politically correct totem of 50 per cent. participation in higher education?

Phil Willis: That is an insulting intervention from such an ostensibly intelligent Member—[Hon. Members: "Ostensibly?"] I use my words advisedly. Nothing has been said during this debate from any Bench that suggests that we want to undermine academic excellence. That is not the case—[Interruption.] It is certainly not what we want. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the baccalaureate is used in some countries, in some areas or in the private sector as a route to academic excellence and broadening, I should like to explore that in this debate—[Interruption.] I should like to respond to the hon. Gentleman, if he will stop shouting at me.

John Bercow: I am not shouting.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman is speaking rather loudly from a sedentary position.
	We also need to consider that army of youngsters who achieve nothing and gain nothing from the system. We must not think in terms of an exclusive either/or decision.
	One of the greatest omissions from the Learning and Skills Act 2000 was that it completely ignored higher education. If there is to be a genuine continuum of lifelong learning, higher education must be part of it. Last week the Minister for Lifelong Learning—who is deep in conversation at the moment—said that she was prepared to examine the relationship between FE and HE and between the Learning and Skills Council and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Our party is on record as saying that we want the Learning and Skills Council and the HEFCE to be combined, except for research fund moneys. It is important that we do not create a new 14 to 19 structure and then find that there is a barrier when people try to move between the FE and HE structures.
	I hope that the Minister will agree that we are trying to make progress by holding this debate, rather than merely picking a fight with the Government.

David Chaytor: I welcome the Opposition's choice of this subject for debate, but it is especially surprising given that, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) pointed out, the Conservative manifesto made no reference to a policy on post-16 education. During their past four years in opposition, the Conservatives put little emphasis on the subject. Furthermore, their record during their last four years in office was dire.
	I associate myself with some of the hon. Gentleman's critique of the period between 1993 and 1997, although given that his criticism of the Tory record was so strong I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats did not feel able to table their own amendment to the Tory amendment. Unfortunately, they seem to agree with the substance of the Tory amendment.
	Between 1993 and 1997, following the incorporation of further education colleges, funding for the post-16 sector was squeezed, year on year, in a way that it never had been in any UK public service during any four-year period. The result was tremendous staff demoralisation and an enormous exodus of further education lecturers from the profession. There was a huge rundown of the staffing base, leading to the recruitment of a large number of part-time, temporary contract staff, with inevitable instability and uncertainty for the institutions.
	There was a continual struggle with a funding methodology that was more arcane and complex than any that had been used for any UK public service. The management of colleges throughout the country struggled day to day as they grappled with that funding methodology in a constant effort to beat the system.
	I hark back to the oft-cited fact that 1 million extra students were recruited during that period of Tory Government. In fact, the figure was entirely the result of creative accounting. The real number of students fell as the system started to fall apart. The impact of competition between colleges led to greater confusion about what was on offer. The numbers were maintained on a wholly notional basis. I speak with some feeling on that point, because before I became a Member one of my jobs was to beat the system in exactly that way.
	During that period, we saw the introduction of a pseudo-enterprise culture in the post-16 sector. Sadly, as the years passed, some of the Conservatives' heroes of that enterprise culture finished up running pubs in north Wales with their girlfriends rather than the colleges they should have been running. Some of them are still fugitives from justice. Others ended up in jail—if they did not end up there, they should have done. The record of the last Conservative Government is dire. Many of the problems currently facing the sector are entirely attributable to that period.
	It was depressing that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) concentrated most of her remarks on AS-levels and on schools. She made passing reference to further education colleges and sixth form colleges, but made no reference to adult training. There was no reference to young people who leave school with no qualifications. There was minimal reference to students who continue along the vocational route.

Chris Grayling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that head teachers, parents and sixth formers are greatly concerned that the Government's approach to post-16 education ignores our sixth forms and treats them as second-class citizens and that the Government are much more interested in colleges and other aspects of post-16 education? Would it not be appropriate for the Government to send a signal to our sixth forms, which deliver so much quality, that they do matter?

David Chaytor: I am very aware that the vast majority of 16 to 19-year-old students are taught in colleges, not in sixth forms. The overwhelming majority of post-16 students are taught neither in sixth-form colleges nor in sixth forms, but in general further education colleges or tertiary colleges, or they study outside the institutional framework. We have to set the importance of sixth forms in that context, and I shall return to them later in my remarks.
	In contrast with what happened between 1993 and 1997, the Government have recognised the importance of post-16 and lifelong learning in the past four years. That recognition has been supported by remarkable new investment in the sector, by record new numbers of students—I am talking about real bodies, not the creative accounting of students entering the sector—and by the widening of participation and the extension of educational opportunity to different social groups.

Theresa May: I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's claims of record increases in student numbers in further education. In fact, the number of students has fallen by 189,000 under this Labour Government.

David Chaytor: I remind the hon. Lady that we are debating post-16 education, not simply that for 16 to 19-year-olds. I include the number of students who are 19-plus, and I am talking about the increases in higher education and in the number of students who stay on beyond 16, which is higher than ever before.

Theresa May: I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that there has been a net fall of 110,000 in the total number of students in further education and in higher education.

David Chaytor: We could spend all afternoon trading statistics. [Interruption.] I am happy to do so, but all I can say is that in the past four years more young people have remained in education than ever before, partly because we are now moving forward to a much broader definition of what constitutes post-16 education. We are no longer hung up on the sixth form or the A-level as the only significant post-16 qualification. We are continuing towards the Government's target of getting almost 50 per cent. of 18-year-olds into higher education by 2010. Such a continuous extension of educational opportunity was simply unthinkable during the Tory years.
	I do not want to reinforce the obsession with AS-levels. Although it is clear that there have been difficulties with implementation and serious questions remain for the QCA and the examining boards, that is not the most serious issue in post-16 education today. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that a consensus appears to be emerging that AS-levels alone are not the issue and that the more profound issue is the importance of a coherent curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds. I look forward to the Government doing more work on that as the months pass, so that we can quickly have such a curriculum, which exists in many other European countries whose levels of achievement and participation are far higher than ours.
	I cannot be the only Member in the Chamber who has a 17-year-old son who has spent the past 12 months studying the first year of curriculum 2000. I have been able to observe at first hand the differences between his experience and that of my daughter, who studied traditional A-levels two years ago. Frankly, I observe comparatively little difference in the work load, although I accept that the frequency of assessment is a problem and that the concept and implementation of the key skills programme has been almost an unmitigated disaster—a point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead did not mention at all. The QCA's interim report contained serious criticisms of the key skills programme, and there is a need for urgent reform, preferably for year 2 of curriculum 2000. I will pass on to my son the hon. Lady's generous remarks to all those students following curriculum 2000 this year, and I am sure that he will be very grateful for them.

David Rendel: The hon. Gentleman's experience is totally different from mine if he thinks that no more work has been involved, and I have a child in the age group that he mentions. Did he not notice that the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that the expectation was that the students would be involved in a lot more work? If the hon. Gentleman's son or daughter has not experienced that, they are not experiencing what the Secretary of State expected.

David Chaytor: We could spend all afternoon trading individual experiences. I could cite my visit to the two excellent colleges in my constituency. In the past few months, I have spent a considerable amount of time talking to students, especially those at the Holy Cross sixth form college. Without exception, their response to the first year of curriculum 2000 was, first, that they welcomed its greater breadth. Secondly, they found that it involved a large amount of work but that, by and large, they were coping and they would have the opportunity to drop a subject in the second year. Thirdly, the major problem was the teaching and the concept of key skills, which they recognised as unsatisfactory. Fourthly, they approved of the continuous assessment, but they wanted it to be perhaps less frequent. They approved of assessment throughout the year, rather than being solely dependent on one form of assessment at the end of a two-year programme. I think that that is enough trading of individual experiences.
	On sixth forms and differential funding, it is completely unacceptable that we continue with such a gap. The precise gap is disputed, but it is indisputable that a gap exists between the per capita funding for students taking A-levels in sixth forms or in sixth-form colleges and those taking them in tertiary colleges or general further education colleges. That is indefensible. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that and that they have given a commitment that the differential will be closed over time, by levelling up the college sector.
	I ask the Minister to refer in her winding-up speech to the fact that uncertainty remains about the Government's response to the consultation on sixth-form funding, which, I think, closed in March. It would be helpful if she could say when the Government will respond to that consultation document. It would be helpful if the Government could give some information on the method by which the standard spending assessment will be top sliced and redistributed to the Learning and Skills Council, so that we know exactly what the funding will be.
	Having said that, the Opposition have done young people and their parents no service at all by continuing their obsession with sixth forms. Their thinking is mistaken. They would establish the A-level as a gold standard, regardless of the nature, the quality, the size and the location of the sixth form, or its curriculum provision. That is a classic example of an issue in which the standards and structures dilemma needs to be pursued. The real issue about post-16 education is not that sixth forms are good and colleges are bad; nor that all college provision is good and all sixth form provision is bad: what matters are the standards and the level of achievement, not the structures.
	I want to remind the House of the figures that relate to the size of sixth forms in the United Kingdom by putting on record a parliamentary answer of 24 May 2000. We were told that, of the 1,834 sixth forms in England, 115 had 50 or fewer pupils; 319 of them had between 51 and 100 pupils; and 409 of them had 101 to 150 pupils.
	The hon. Member for Maidenhead asked the Government to give an indication of the minimum viable size of sixth form, but I do not think that any Government would do that. However, in the mid-1980s, Her Majesty's inspectorate issued a document that spelled out fairly specifically what the minimum viable size for a sixth form would be for it to be able to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum under the old A-level system. My recollection was that it was about 150 pupils.
	The figures that I was given in the written answer show that almost 45 per cent. of sixth forms in England have 150 pupils or fewer. If we are moving towards a baccalaureate system—regardless of whether it is a full baccalaureate system or whether we stay with curriculum 2000—I wonder whether smaller sixth forms can adequately provide the breadth and balance of the curriculum and richness of experience without plundering the budgets for years 7 to 11 in those schools.
	I also received an answer to a written question on 13 June 2000 and it analysed the A-level points score according to the size of sixth form. It showed that schools with 50 or fewer pupils obtained an average A-level points score of 7.4; schools with 51 to 100 pupils obtained a score of 9.4; those with 101 to 150 pupils obtained 11.9; those with 151 to 200 pupils obtained 14.6; those with 201 to 250 pupils obtained 15.7; and those with more than 250 pupils obtained 15.8.
	As the average A-level points score for the whole country is 15.3, we might be able to draw two important lessons from those figures. The first is that achievement at A-level is directly proportionate to size of sixth form. Secondly, only two categories of sixth forms—those with 201 to 250 or with more than 250 pupils—actually achieve an A-level points score greater than the national average.
	I do not instantly draw such conclusions, but it is important information and we need to debate it. We must get away from our hang-ups about the importance of structures and institutions and must consider levels of achievement across the country. Even though I accept that A-level point scores are not the only criterion by which we should measure achievement, we need to design our structures to maximise achievement.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has been most generous in giving way to my interventions. He is in danger of stereotyping school sixth forms. He talks about 150 as the Ofsted-set level for viability, but what would he say to the head of the secondary school that I visited in West Bromwich and that has a sixth form with fewer than 50 pupils? The school does not offer A-level courses, but it has set up a sixth form specifically to provide a very limited range of courses that were not available to pupils in colleges in the locality. Pupils were otherwise falling through the net and were not being given the opportunity to undertake courses that might benefit them.

David Chaytor: I would say that the head teacher is probably doing a very good job; I never take on head teachers as that is a dangerous thing to do.
	I take the hon. Lady's point exactly. That is why I do not draw sweeping conclusions about the achievements of small sixth forms. I am certainly conscious of the fact that the remoteness of some parts of the country and their sparsity of population—I do not think that West Bromwich falls into this category—means that small sixth forms are the only way forward.
	In many urban and suburban parts of the country, however, the legacy of the Education Reform Act 1988 coupled with the legacy of the Higher and Further Education Act 1992 mean that we have far too many schools for 11 to 18-year-olds struggling desperately to hang on to tiny unviable sixth forms for reasons that are entirely understandably to do with the preservation of the staff and their sense of identity in the school. It is a classic example of a producer-led system. In such areas, schools, head teachers and governors are doing no favours to the young people who, in many cases, would be far better-off in a sixth form college system, in a tertiary college or in a federal system in which the school for 11 to 16-year-olds is far more closely linked with the local college.

Caroline Flint: There is much merit in my hon. Friend's arguments, but will he consider areas such as mine? It is made up of mining villages in a rural setting and a number of sixth forms keep young people in education even though they do not necessarily take A-levels. What does he think of a system in which providers work with other providers to ensure that young people have choices to continue their post-16 education and opportunities to do one part of a course at a venue that is linked to a college in the town centre?

David Chaytor: That is the way forward for many parts of the country. As I said, we cannot draw sweeping conclusions from the information that I cited earlier on the relationship between the size of a sixth form and academic performance, but we must start a far more serious and mature debate, free from preconceptions about the particular types of institutions. I hope that such a debate will take place as the months go by.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman has been most generous in giving way. How would he characterise the sixth form at Furtherwick school on Canvey Island, where there was previously no post-16 education provision? Children from Canvey Island had to travel to the mainland. Since the sixth form was established—it is still quite small, but it is growing and becoming more successful year on year—the staying-on rate has increased dramatically. In addition, how would he explain why, when sixth form provision is introduced in competition with college provision to add choice, the results from the colleges as well as from those staying on at the sixth form improve? Sixth forms drive up standards by providing competition.

David Chaytor: I am loth to characterise anything of which I have no direct experience, so I will refrain from answering the hon. Gentleman's question. However, it is important to distinguish between the impact of competition for its own sake or as a result of Government diktat and the need to provide appropriate choice. In the past, this country has been far too obsessed with the issue of choice between institutions and we have been concerned less frequently with the importance of choice within the institutions. The obsession with competition between institutions—competition that is ostensibly designed to provide choice—has led to a diminution of choice within institutions for certain groups of students. We need choice, but we do not need competition for its own sake.
	Although I began by saying that I resented the way in which the Opposition introduced the debate to suggest that schools and AS-levels were the big issue in post-16 education, I am conscious of the fact that I have been sucked into considering that issue. However, I hope that when we next have a debate on post-16 education we can ignore sixth forms and AS-levels and consider the overwhelming majority of young people who do not go on to A-levels and who take the vocational route. We should also consider the growing problem of an underclass of under-achieving young people who leave school with nothing and, in many cases, well before the age of 16. They are easily sucked into a life of crime and other antisocial behaviour.
	Before I conclude I wish to comment on two or three other points and invite my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to them. One of the Government's major achievements in the past four years was the introduction of education maintenance awards. There are, I think, 56 pilot areas and the scheme is working work well. I urge the Government to continue the concept and extend it nationwide. My area is surrounded by districts that are part of the scheme, and that throws up enormous anomalies. Unlike students in Bolton and Rochdale, students in Bury are not entitled to the awards. They and their parents cannot understand the distinction. I call on the Government to move quickly to make the pilots a national scheme.
	Skills within the adult population are important. I pay tribute to the work of the Moser report on basic skills and the Government's national strategy, published last year, which contains, as I mentioned in the most recent Education questions, an interesting proposal. The strategy suggests that the Government will consider funding the release of employees so that they acquire basic skills. That would help people in low-income, low-status and low-skilled jobs, with poor literacy and numeracy levels. The report said that the Government should consider funding that for one day a week for 13 weeks, which is 13 days a year of paid educational leave. I want to draw the Minister's attention to that important proposal and to the Bill that I promoted last year—the Lifelong Learning (Paid Study Time) Bill—to provide paid educational leave for all employees. I shall introduce the Bill again this year and hope to attract wider support for the concept.
	For many people in the adult work force, including MPs, barristers, business people and academics, paid educational leave is a given part of their life. We have no problem in taking almost as much time as we want off our regular daily work to enhance our professional skill and knowledge. However, the overwhelming majority of people are trapped in low-paid, low-skilled jobs. Their lives are a daily struggle to get by, and they have no security and little prospect of advancement. Unless they are extremely fortunate, they are never released from their employer to improve their skills. It is a classic example of where the market alone will not work.
	Given a free choice, most employers will choose not to release their staff because they do not obtain an immediate benefit. In this case, it is an absolute responsibility of the Government to intervene in the operation of the market and, although there will be a short-term cost to compensate employers for releasing their staff, the long-term benefits—the life opportunities for low-paid workers and the improved quality of life for their children and families—will be well worth while.
	I welcome the Government's work over the past four years and encourage them to continue so that post-16 education remains at the top of the policy agenda and lifelong learning for everyone becomes the norm, not the exception.

Gregory Barker: I have the honour to address the House for the first time this afternoon and the privilege to represent the East Sussex constituency of Bexhill and Battle, which contains the two towns of that name and a large rural area covering some 240 square miles. I was born and bred in Sussex, so to represent that seat means a great deal to me.
	I follow Charles Wardle, who represented the constituency for 18 years, held ministerial office and was a diligent and assiduous constituency Member of Parliament, often taking up local causes with extraordinary and effective tenacity, as many residents of Robertsbridge, who suffered yet again this winter from terrible flooding, will readily testify. I hope that people will remember him for that rather than for his unhappy relationship with the Conservative party at the end of his parliamentary career.
	I am pleased to say that Bexhill and Battle has been represented by a Conservative Member since 1874, and Charles Wardle was preceded by a distinguished and much respected parliamentarian, Bryant Godman Irvin, who gave great service to the House, not least as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee from 1976 to 1982. He is still remembered with affection by my more senior colleagues.
	Byrant Godman Irvin was preceded by another distinguished Member, a former mayor of Bexhill, Mr. W. N. Cuthbert. He was one of the few Tories to enter the House in the first election after the second world war at the time of the Labour landslide. I feel a strange affinity with Mr. Cuthbert. He, too, must have sat on these very Benches and stared in disbelief at the overwhelming number of Labour Members, but I take great encouragement from the fact that just five years after he was elected, that great majority was swept away.
	It is a time-honoured tradition for new Members to make bold and flattering claims for their constituency. However, I can tell the House that Bexhill and Battle is, without a degree of doubt, one of the most beautiful parts of this kingdom. Mindful of the fact that we live in an age of performance indicators and audits, I have the statistics to prove it. Some 74 per cent. of Bexhill and Battle is designated an area of outstanding natural beauty and we have 16 sites of special scientific interest. From the High Weald to the Pevensey levels, from the Kent ditch to Brightling beacon, my constituency is blessed with an idyllic historic landscape and a majestic coastline. My constituents are guardians of a very special environment which I have pledged to defend.
	We also treasure something else in Bexhill and Battle, less visible in the tourist guides but just as important—quality of life. Quality of life is a fragile and precious thing which cannot be measured by economic indicators alone. We understand that in the countryside, especially in the patchwork of close-knit rural communities that criss-cross my constituency. In the elegant Edwardian seaside town of Bexhill, I am pleased to say that standards of courtesy and decency still prevail. The De La Warr Pavilion, a modernist architectural gem, may be our most famous landmark, but the public spirit of my constituents, which finds expression in the numerous and highly successful voluntary organisations and charity fundraising committees, is perhaps the town's finest feature. They do a terrific job.
	Few people realise that Bexhill was the birthplace of British motor racing and next year we look forward to celebrating the 100th anniversary of the first motor race along the seafront. However, in a constituency that is rich in historical associations, that race was relatively recent. Most famously, of course, in 1066 King Harold was defeated by William of Normandy. The town of Battle is now a charming, historic but vibrant market town. Despite the passing of 1,000 years, the deeds of that fateful day and the personalities of the individuals involved are still stamped on the local landscape. The strong vein of Euroscepticism that runs through my constituency perhaps shows that there are old scores yet to settle.
	For all the charm and picturesque qualities, we are not complacent. Even amidst the rolling Sussex countryside, there are pockets of real hardship. As police numbers fall, fear of rising crime is rife across the constituency. Areas of Bexhill still wrestle with problems of social deprivation and antisocial behaviour. Our local hospital is frequently subject to bed-blocking and this afternoon's decision by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to decline to go ahead with the Bexhill bypass will be seen as a kick in the teeth for the town.
	The bypass was not just a measure to ease traffic congestion; it was desperately needed to provide land for housing to attract people to the town and to provide homes for local families who are unable to get on the property ladder. It would have opened up land for a business park to provide much-needed, better-paid jobs, and it would have provided land to build a new university, which is one of the proposals of the new Conservative-controlled East Sussex county council. I, for one, shall continue the fight for the Bexhill bypass. However, I welcome any action from the Secretary of State to upgrade the A21 and improve our poor rail links to London.
	Many people in the villages and the countryside in my constituency face a bleak, uncertain future, thanks to the crisis in the countryside and the secondary shockwaves from the foot and mouth epidemic. Action is undoubtedly needed, but the imposition of urban values on rural communities is certainly not the answer. However, my constituents know that to prosper they must embrace change. The area must attract investment to bring greater opportunities to young people and the less well-off members of our community. That means embracing new technology, new ways of working, a better skill base and a better transport infrastructure, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs can prosper. There is no universal solution, but I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that if we can get education right so much else will come right too.
	My constituency is fortunate in having many good schools. My son's primary school in Etchingham, with just 130 pupils, is one of several beacon schools, sharing its success with others. We are particularly proud of the fact that Bexhill high school has just won technology college status. I applaud the fact that education is one of the Government's foremost priorities, but as much as I share their ambition to make improvements, I am genuinely concerned by their propensity to over-regulate our schools and further education colleges. In their desperation to drive up results, they chronically overload teachers and students.
	Childhood and adolescence are not merely a departure lounge for adulthood, but a time of life that should be enjoyed and relished for its own sake. We do our children no favours by denying them a childhood. We do young adults no favours if, at 16 or 18, they are worn down and worried by a constant work load of public examinations and tests. At the election, the Labour party told the country that "the work goes on", but for the sixth formers at Bexhill college, the work goes on and on and on. After-school sports, clubs and extra-curricular activities are all being squeezed as never before, and in driving our students ever harder, the Government risk quenching the very thing that drives our economy, the ingredient X that gives our nation an advantage over our trading competitors, which is our blend of ingenuity, creative spirit, free thinking and entrepreneurial flair.
	Before entering the House I spent two fascinating years working for a large corporation in Russia, at the front line of efforts to reform and reinvigorate the post-Soviet economy. I was lucky to work with numerous highly educated people, whose excellent general management admission test scores were terrifying. The breadth of their knowledge never ceased to amaze me, but all too often, despite that, their ability to think creatively, to be radical and to take personal responsibility and initiative had been completely drilled out of them by an overbearing education system. The flicker of creativity and individualism that is the essential catalyst of wealth creation had been completely extinguished.
	Clearly, we have not yet reached that point in this country, but, albeit from the kindest of motives, that is the direction in which our further education system is heading. Indeed, a Russian official making a recent fact-finding visit to a neighbouring education authority, when asked for her impressions remarked that the British education system was very impressive, but seemed to her rather over-centralised.
	The current confusion and the U-turns in the new AS-level regime have only compounded that worry. It is no wonder that there is an unprecedented crisis in teacher retention and recruitment. I speak as a director of, and shareholder in, an advertising agency that specialises in that area of public service recruitment. It is time to trust the teaching profession, which has changed greatly in recent years. Those good changes were set in train by successive Conservative Governments. We rightly expect a great deal of our schools, and we must hold to account those who fail to deliver, but surely it is now time to stand back and give our teachers and lecturers some professional space.
	Bexhill college in my constituency is subjected to three separate external auditors, and barely a week passes without an audit or official inspection taking place, tying up a huge amount of staff time and front-line education resources. The funding for the college comes from up to 73 separate pots, with all those amounts, including sums as small as £2,000 for governor training, having to be separately tracked. We will never unlock the potential of each and every student by crushing the professional freedom of teachers and lecturers.
	I began this speech by praising my constituency, and I should like to end in the same vein. As this is a debate on education, I hope that the House will indulge me if I quote a verse by Rudyard Kipling, who made his home at Burwash in my constituency and was inspired by the wonderful countryside around him. He wrote:
	"God gives all men all earth to love,
	But, since man's heart is small,
	Ordains for each, one spot shall prove
	Belovèd over all
	Each to his choice, and I rejoice
	The lot has fallen to me
	In a fair ground—in a fair ground—
	Yea, Sussex, by the sea!"

Paul Farrelly: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) on his maiden speech. For those in the Gallery who may think that we new Members have taken too much sun, or something stronger, on the Terrace, I should point out that these speeches tend to follow a traditional form. The hon. Gentleman paid handsome tributes to his predecessor and his constituency, and made a substantial contribution to the debate.
	I should like also to congratulate my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State on her appointment. She is a former teacher with a lifelong commitment to education and no need of a belated voyage of discovery.
	I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, because in my constituency we face a challenge in encouraging more of our children simply to remain at school after 16. Two thirds of the high schools have staying-on rates that are well below the county and national averages. That includes my old school, Wolstanton High, where, as a young father knocking on 40, I am still a governor.
	That challenge has much to do with the loyal and ancient borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. For those who are straining to hear a hint of Geordie, a common mistake, may I explain that Newcastle-under-Lyme is indeed in the north—north Staffordshire? Granted our royal charter in 1173, we can rightfully claim to be the first Newcastle, or, for that matter, Oldcastle. We were overrun by the Romans and the Normans long before they reached the Tyne, although of course they reached Bexhill and Battle long before us. It seems that for our 800 years we have always been fighting somebody or other. For much of the past century we have resisted the imperialist embrace of our Victorian new arrivals next door in the pottery city of Stoke-on-Trent.
	Newcastle is historically not a potteries town, but many of our folk have toiled in the bottle kilns and our terraces housed their workers. Newcastle's first Labour Member of Parliament was Josiah Wedgwood, a great-grandson of the founder of the Wedgwood company; we have been represented by Labour ever since 1919. We might have got Luton's motor factory, but the pot bank owners fought it—in our area, they did not want to pay car-makers' wages.
	Newcastle has always been a market town—the trading centre of north Staffordshire, but above all it has been a pit town: the Staffordshire coalfield is the biggest in the country and the Wolstanton and Silverdale mines were Britain's deepest. In one civil war, Newcastle's roundheads, loyal to Parliament, saw off cavaliers from Cheshire and Derbyshire; sadly, in round two, we lost to the lady from Lincolnshire, so all our pits are now gone. We have lots of parks instead, mind you. Apedale mine is now a beautifully landscaped nature park, Wolstanton a retail park and Holditch a thriving business park thanks to Newcastle's wonderful council, helped now by a Labour Government.
	No matter how we fought the industrial challenge, Newcastle's community bears the scars and they continue to show in our schools. I know how hard it is for poorer kids to stay on after the age of 16: my mum left school at 15 and my dad, in Ireland, at 12. I can safely say that I am the only new Labour Member of Parliament to be the grandson of a rabbit trapper from County Meath. I was urged to go to work at 16, but more than a little stubbornness, combined with wiping tables at Keele motorway service station and pouring pints for the world darts championships at Jollees nightclub in between, enabled me to survive A-levels and get the best of educations.
	I was the first of my family to go to university—to Oxford. I was lucky. My English granddad—a captain's messenger hopping the trenches in the gunfire of the first world war, a staunch trade unionist all his life and one of the first members of the Labour party—knew the value of education. I am proud to serve Newcastle-under-Lyme for a Labour party that has put at the heart of its second term in government the transformation of secondary education and the expansion of further and higher education for all, not only a privileged few.
	Making sure our kids achieve begins in the home, not at school. Labour's family policies are already helping poorer children to break the vicious circle of families surviving on benefit with no incentives, no jobs and no aspirations. We are also giving children a hand directly: my constituency now benefits from the sure start programme, and Stoke-on-Trent is reaping rewards from the education maintenance allowance, which helps poorer children to stay on past 16. I am sure that my hon. Friends from Stoke will understand it when, just this once, I cast my eyes enviously at their patch and urge the Government to extend the EMA to all of Newcastle, north Staffordshire and nationally, so that all our kids benefit from a level playing field. Above all, we must continue to level up education standard spending assessments in areas such as Staffordshire. The Government will, I am sure, continue to do exactly that.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) highlighted some of the holes in the Conservatives' manifesto. During the election I noticed that they had already stolen some of Labour's clothes, but not, it would seem, in education. I hope that during their knockabout leadership election, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) will undertake another voyage of discovery and abandon foolish and dangerous policies such as so-called free schools. They are not free: someone will pay and it will be the least advantaged of our children who face the greatest challenges to staying on beyond 16.
	It is right and proper that, as is the custom, I now pay tribute to my predecessor. Children have been the lifelong passion of Llin Golding, who represented Newcastle for 15 years. Despite Llin's many other onerous commitments, such as the Commons fly fishing club, the Back-Bench horse racing committee and the foxy Middle Way, she always led the parliamentary children's group. She served as a Front-Bench spokesman on education and agriculture. Her creativity in combining her passions has been truly remarkable: for example, she remains a patron of Second Chance, a charity for less advantaged children who need special help—to spend weekends fishing, of course.
	The new Baroness Golding's sweet songbird name—Llinos is Welsh for linnet—truly understates her steely determination. To quote another parliamentary incomparable, Andrew Roth:
	"She was a tough Whip and organiser with a warm heart for the underprivileged, especially children in trouble."
	My hon. Friend the new Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) has already paid generous tribute to Llin's father, Ness Edwards, former Member of Parliament for Llin's birthplace and a member of Clement Attlee's Cabinet. I am sure that the House agrees that Llin's elevation to the peerage—without inducement, I am ecstatic to say—is just reward for the 60 years of service that she, her father and her late husband John gave the House.
	No mention of Newcastle-under-Lyme would be complete without praising the late, great John Golding. Many of my older colleagues will have mixed feelings about my old friend, Labour's witchfinder general and the well named "hammer of the left", but I am sure that everyone recognises John's outstanding contribution to Labour's historic electoral success under my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). John was a tireless champion of the underprivileged and one of the earliest campaigners for the minimum wage. Locally, he was a passionate advocate for Newcastle further education college, which now offers our over-16s a wonderful array of academic and vocational qualifications. He, and we, will not tolerate an education system that acts merely as a sieve of failure at different stages for our children.
	In remembering John, I commend the especially dear obituary written by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, whom I wish a speedy recovery. John holds the record for the longest ever parliamentary speech: 11 hours and 15 minutes speaking to a single amendment to delay the privatisation of British Telecom in 1983. With his much missed twinkle in the eye, John once told me that eight minutes was the ideal length for a speech. The House will be glad that, on my maiden outing, I have followed John's advice and not his custom and practice. I commend the Government's record, our manifesto, and the amendment to the House.

Adam Price: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today, a little later and a little hoarser—thanks to a bout of tonsillitis—than I had intended.
	The hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) have set an exacting standard with their excellent speeches. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for a thought-provoking and well informed contribution. He spoke from the heart and I have no doubt that he will be a credit to his party, his constituency and the House.
	I, too, pay tribute to my predecessor. Dr. Alan Williams was a most assiduous advocate on behalf of his constituents. A chemist, he brought to the House valuable expertise, a keen interest in scientific and environmental policy and a reasoned and logical approach to every issue that came to his attention. I wish him every success in future. Dr. Williams had the honour to be the longest serving Member of Parliament for a constituency renowned for febrile campaigning and unpredictability. Among my more colourful predecessors was William Paxton, who in his first attempt to capture the seat in 1802 kept the polls open for 15 days and bribed the electorate with 11,000 breakfasts, 36,000 dinners, 25,000 gallons of ale, 11,000 bottles of spirits—the list goes on—spending £18.18 for milk punch, whatever that is, and £786 for ribbons. He might have had a little difficulty explaining his actions to today's Electoral Commission.
	The last Member of Parliament for the Carmarthen Boroughs seat was the nationalist and anti-Lloyd George Liberal Llewelyn Williams, who said of the House:
	"You get in to get on, you stay in to get honours, you get out to get honest".
	Perhaps his cynical view of politics can be explained by the rather curious Carmarthenshire tradition, which survived well into the 20th century, whereby Tories wore red rosettes and their opponents blue—a tradition that in these days of ideological confusion seems strangely apt.
	The political history of the Carmarthen constituency was especially interesting in the 20th century. Carmarthen was the only Labour-held seat—apart from Mile End in London, which went communist—that the party lost in the 1945 election. It was the only Labour-held seat that the party lost in the second 1974 election. I am pleased to say that on 7 June this year it became the only Labour-held seat lost by Labour in Wales.
	Above all, Carmarthen was the first seat won by Plaid Cymru—the party of Wales—in 1966. I pay special tribute to my predecessor Gwynfor Evans, the founder of modern Welsh nationalism. His integrity, eloquence and commitment to the cause of Wales set an example to which I can but hope to aspire. He continues to be an inspiration to everyone in my party.
	It is no exaggeration to say that the communities of East Carmarthen and Dinefwr have a unique, historic character. They stand on the cusp of rural and industrial Wales, and are the gateway to both. Four main valleys make up the constituency: the post-industrial Amman and Gwendraeth valleys of the anthracite coalfield and the agricultural heartlands of the Teifi and Tywi valleys. The constituency has the only anthracite coalfield in Britain and produces more milk than any other county in the UK.
	The interplay and interconnection of the two communities—the coalfield and the milkfield—lie at the heart of the special character of my constituency. The markets of the south Wales coalfield helped to build up the dairy sector. Welsh-speaking peasants and farmers, including my grandfather, huddled into the terraced cottages of the pit villages of Amman and Gwendraeth. Where others try to drive a wedge between town and country, we in Carmarthenshire have a bond of solidarity between village and valley, miner and farmer—from the free milk supplied by the farmers of Carmarthenshire to miners' families during the great strike of 1984, to the enormous concern shared by everyone in my constituency at the human cost of the deepening rural depression.
	I was born and brought up in the industrial half of the constituency. My forefathers lived and worked in grim conditions, but they succeeded in sustaining a remarkably vibrant culture, which was characterised by a love of two languages, of religion and of all aspects of popular culture. That is certainly true of sport; the two valleys of Amman and Gwendraeth can boast the likes of Carwyn James, Barry John, Gareth Davies and Jonathan Davies—to name but a few of the greats of the Welsh game—as well as the emerging present-day talents of Shane Williams and Dwayne Peel. In snooker, we have in my constituency Matthew Stevens and Dominic Dale. In soccer, we have the former Welsh international goalkeeper, Dai Davies. Last but not least, my father was a former Welsh middleweight champion and, if I may say so, a formidable canvasser on the election trail.
	Other great defining characteristics of the people of Carmarthenshire are their patriotism and democratic socialism. There was no finer an exponent of that than the late Jim Griffiths. Along with Aneurin Bevan, of course, he was one of the two great founders of the welfare state, having introduced the National Insurance Act 1948 under the Attlee Government. He was also a firm believer in the Welsh dimension of politics. So it was fitting that he should have succeeded in being made the Charter Secretary of State for Wales—a fulfilment of his lifelong ambition for his country. He passionately believed—as I do today—that the villages and valleys had something distinctive to contribute to our shared humanity.
	The essence of these values was captured in, of all places, last Friday's edition of The Times, in an obituary of the theologian W. D. Davies, who was originally from Glanaman.
	"Davies"—
	it said—
	"had the quiet dignity of the miners he knew as a child, people who knew the depth of economic depression but retained the self-respect that they found in the Christian faith. The social concern of the Nonconformist chapels of the Amman Valley gave him a concern for those he perceived as victims, and this developed into a natural affinity with the Jewish people".
	Jim Griffiths was a product of that same tradition, but in the 1960s the vision and the values on which such great communities had been built were threatened—ironically as a result of his own Government's policies.
	In an archive in Ammanford, there is a letter written by Jim Griffiths to a Labour party colleague shortly after a Carmarthen by-election, stating baldly that all Labour seats in Wales were vulnerable. Jim Griffiths' particular concern was that the Labour party had lost the support of young people. The cause was clear then as it is now. As Gwynfor Evans declared in his maiden speech 35 years ago, the Labour party boasts of prosperity but the people of Carmarthen
	"see no evidence of this prosperity. What they see is mines closing, railways closing, steel workers being made redundant and a decline in agriculture."—[Official Report, 26 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1498.]
	The parallel between those words, spoken 35 years ago, with the Wales of today is chilling in its accuracy.
	The Labour party has never really recaptured the energies of young people in Wales. That is why I stand here a Plaid Member, a miner's son and the youngest Member representing a Wales constituency. When hubris threatens to overwhelm some of my fellow Welshmen on the Government Benches, whom I am glad to see present, perhaps they should ask themselves why people of my generation and background have turned their backs on Labour.
	The issue of post-16 education possibly offers some clues. There are few issues that for me define more precisely the essence of social justice in an advanced society than access to education. Further and higher education were to me, as to so many hon. Members, the key that unlocked the door to the favoured position that we now enjoy.
	Education involves not only individual benefit but social and economic gain for society as a whole. Indeed, according to the recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, almost half a percentage point of the annual average growth rate in the UK in the 1990s was due to educational attainment. More sobering was the finding in the report that, in 1998, the UK spent only 4.9 per cent. of gross domestic product on education compared with an OECD average of 5.3 per cent—still far below the Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, which invest more than 7 per cent. of their annual income in education.
	Alongside questions of funding lies the issue of student financial support, on which the Opposition motion is curiously silent. Like many an hon. Member, my training ground for political engagement was the National Union of Students. I particularly remember the presidential term of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and the great lobby of Westminster against student loans, which ended in deadlock—unfortunately—on Westminster bridge.
	Our policy in the NUS was to defend and extend the principle of the maintenance grant to embrace all those in full-time post-16 education. Our fears then about the effects of the abolition of the maintenance grant have been borne out by a string of recent reports. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales last year published research showing that, following the introduction of student fees, prospective students from the deprived communities of south Wales were up to three times less likely to attend university.
	Earlier this year, the Rees report on student hardship, commissioned by the Lib-Lab coalition in the National Assembly, echoed the Cubie report in calling for the abolition of tuition fees and went further in calling for a statutory entitlement to maintenance support for all those in HE and FE. That was the very same policy that many of us were advocating back in the 1980s while in the NUS.
	As the youngest of three working-class children to go to university, and one of the last to receive a full maintenance grant, I am passionately committed to ensuring that the same opportunities are afforded to today's generation of young people. Passion in politics, it seems, is no bad thing—even, if the House will forgive me, in a maiden speech.
	It is often said that the difference between a Llanelli and a Swansea supporter—those two great rivals of west Wales rugby—is that Swansea supporters wear gloves and Llanelli supporters cannot afford them. I am a Llanelli supporter through and through and I assure the House that my gloves will be off in many of our debates—not out of any enmity for Labour Members, but because I care so deeply about a special place that I love and a special people whom I love. Their demands over the 20th century were modest, but their contribution was immense. They deserve a future that is better than the past. It is our collective duty to ensure that it is delivered.

Tim Boswell: It is entirely appropriate that in this first Opposition-day debate of the new Parliament, we should discuss post-16 education. We all know that it receives insufficient attention. That is partly because we have a strong relationship in our constituencies with schools, parents and children. At the other end of the spectrum, the university sector commands a great deal of firepower. It is often said that further education is a Cinderella squeezed between those great powers. I have a long-standing commitment to FE, especially to adult education, and acknowledge its importance. Even if our motion is contentious in some respects, I hope that both sides of the House agree on the basic premise that the post-16 sector is critical to improving the nation's skills base and its international competitiveness; by implication, it needs greater attention than perhaps it receives.
	Our debate has been marked by a number of distinguished speeches. There is never enough time to debate further education, but at least the quality of speeches has made up for the lack of quantity. There was a distinguished contribution from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who has great expertise, followed by three exceptional maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) produced a wonderful combination of perception, wit and elegance; he emphasised strongly the positive side of his constituency and his commitment to education. That is not to detract in any sense from the contributions of the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price). Perhaps we do not hear enough in the House about passion; we do not hear enough from Labour Members about commitment to the socially disadvantaged. Some Opposition Members have such commitment and we are delighted that passion will be brought to bear on the subject, as there ought to be a common commitment to improve the situation.
	Apart from those speeches, the contributions were mainly from the Front Benches. I regret the fact that Ministers have not quite addressed concerns expressed in all quarters, not only in our debate but more generally in the national debate, about recent events. I particularly regret the fact that they have not addressed the concerns set out in our motion, which were also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who dealt with the immediate issue for almost all post-16 AS-level learners. The Secretary of State conceded that students were having to work harder and study longer; her prescription for dealing with that situation, albeit an interim one, was to offer alleviation in the timetable for assessment, not mitigation of the range of study. Frankly, she seemed to confuse a broader curriculum, with more subjects to study, with a greater breadth of educational experience. We want the latter, and we worry that producing a broader curriculum may displace rather than facilitate it.
	I welcome the Minister for Lifelong Learning, whom I know from previous debates and her service in the Department, to the Dispatch Box and invite her to nail a worry about a specific issue. On 16 August, the first national AS-level results are due to be published. Before our debate ends, can she tell us unequivocally whether those results will be published on time, in full and accurately? We have asked the Government to tell us a number of times, and it is essential that parents and students know where they stand. There can be no ducking the issue and no repetition of the fiasco north of the border last year. Our students have suffered enough problems and cannot go through that as well.
	A range of issues have been raised today, including the differential in funding that has already been discussed at some length. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead remarked, schools are different; in saying so, she echoed remarks made only last week by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey). When the word "convergence" is in the air, we must ensure that schools retain their funding for pre and post-16 education and that any convergence involves levelling up, not levelling down. The Government cannot be permitted to use arguments about schools' funding as a cop-out for inadequacies in FE funding.
	I want to touch on some issues that have not received enough attention today. One is inspection; we now have the first Ofsted reports and, it is fair to say, further work in that area is required. The reports should be considered carefully and dispassionately. Some of us remain uneasy about the interface between Ofsted, the adult learning inspectorate and the colleges and providers themselves. FE is not the same as school education; it does not have the same skills and motivation base as various types of schools. We need to watch that carefully.
	Special educational needs is another important issue which, as the Minister will know, impacts on the difficult transition from school to college. Wisely, the Government responded to representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), whose concerns were shared across the House, about deficiencies in the SEN code of practice and withdrew it in another place yesterday. I hope that they have learned from that experience; any more information that they can give about their plans would be appreciated.
	Finally, there is the overarching issue of qualifications and public examinations, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made clear, must be taken very widely indeed, not just seen as a scissors-and-paste job on a present difficulty. What has made it worse for schools is that GCSE changes and other changes took place in parallel. We must all learn that we have to look at the changes ensemble; we should not consider one change without regard for others taking place at the same time.
	I mention two other important issues, the Connexions service and the structure and operation of the Learning and Skills Council, only to say that we cannot debate them now. We shall need to return to them later, but I submit to the House some wide general considerations and tests that need to be set out. We must consider whether a post-16 system contributes to education in its widest sense, including providing interpersonal and the so-called soft key skills as well as those that are more easily examinable. Does it build up the appropriate skills base for future employment and in an appropriate setting for the particular elements of that base? Does it capture those who would otherwise miss out on further education, by widening access and participation? Does it contribute to widening the base of pre-university general education, which provides the only realistic prospect of meeting Government targets for participation in higher education, unless the standards for entry are diluted?
	Those goals are not being achieved and their achievement seems unlikely under present funding and organisational arrangements for the post-16 sector. The Government set a target increase of 700,000 FE students over two years, but the reality is that in each year of their stewardship student numbers have dropped, albeit by a small amount. They cannot claim even one extra student, yet in our time in government, however much the hon. Member for Bury, North tried to explain it away, we provided for the enrolment of an extra 1 million students. That comparative record bears examination. I do not puff our achievements, which were not without their faults, but the Government's achievements so far have been minimal, if not negative. It is perhaps no accident that they are set against a background of colleges under pressure, with staff under particularly great pressure. Unit funding per student is falling; the flexibility of colleges and their ability to use their resources are being impaired as they find an ever higher proportion of their remaining funds are subject to conditions. Lecturers are falling behind their school equivalents, and even more so behind their counterparts in outside employment, especially when the skills are transferable.
	Further education colleges and the wider delivery of post-16 education—the critical area that we are considering—do great things with diminishing resources. However, somewhere there is a point of failure. The purpose of the motion is to bring that to the attention of the nation before it is too late.

Margaret Hodge: This has been a good if limited debate. It has been constructive and well-informed. I suppose that some of the less well informed interventions from the Opposition Benches can be blamed on distraction. Perhaps Conservative Members have their minds elsewhere. I can assure them that under Labour's commitment to lifelong learning for all they will get the second chance that they denied to so many when they were in government.
	I was pleased to hear three excellent contributions from new Members. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) on an eloquent maiden speech. He told us of all the qualities and opportunities that exist in his constituency and of the threats that he saw facing his constituents. I must tell him that I do not apologise for an obsession with driving up standards. I do not accept that in pursuing high standards we are not developing the important skills and enjoyments that make for the whole person.
	My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newcastle- under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) made a well constructed and passionate maiden speech that ranged across many issues, which he linked to his own experience. He spoke with fondness of his constituency. I look forward to his contributions in future.
	The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) told us some good history about his constituency. By his account, his predecessors made a colourful contribution to what happened in the House. I am sure from his contribution that he will maintain that good record.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) talked about concern about allocations this year from the additional moneys that are going to colleges and further education colleges. I wish to reassure him that the allocations for 2002–03 and 2003–04 have already been given to colleges. Any money that is still outstanding will be paid retrospectively. The Learning and Skills Council is waiting for the forms to come in so that it can meet the bill.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the radical overhaul that we want from 14 to 19. We are committed to that. In the meantime, I hope that he will welcome, as we do, the introduction of a range of qualifications from vocational GCSEs through to AS-levels, vocational A-levels, the modern apprenticeships and foundation degrees, as a way of extending, deepening and opening opportunities for people in education.
	I acknowledge the considerable contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) to the FE sector. He mentioned educational maintenance allowances, which we consider to have been an effective experiment. We are considering their future in depth. I look forward to him pursuing his arguments about paid educational leave for employees.
	I shall talk briefly about school sixth forms, which were raised by several Opposition Members. We gave an unprecedented guarantee to maintain funding for school sixth forms. We have given a clear instruction to the Learning and Skills Council that it must pass the money that it receives to the sixth forms in full.
	Funding for sixth forms varies considerably throughout the country, from £2,600 per student in some areas to £4,100 in others. Making sense of that will take time, but we have a commitment to do so by funding upwards. The Learning and Skills Council will publish information on funding to schools in July. The provisional allocation will be made in December. I hope that that will reassure school sixth forms.
	I can assure the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that we shall publish the A-levels on 16 August. The awarding bodies have confirmed that the results will be issued on that day.

Tim Boswell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Hodge: I am short of time.

Tim Boswell: I appreciate the extreme shortage of time. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the term "A-levels" includes for this purpose AS-levels? There may be a critical distinction.

Margaret Hodge: I understand that, and can confirm that.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the inspection reports. Schools and FE colleges may be different but quality must be high in both.
	I am delighted that we have had an opportunity of a Supply day debate to reflect on the post-16 world in education. The challenges that we face in post-16 education are huge, but crucial and exciting. We must raise aspirations, extend participation and boost attainment for many more people so that British people can equal the peoples of other industrialised nations in their skills and achievements.
	On an individual level, we want men and women to enjoy a better life and a better job. At a national level, we want the skills that are necessary to enhance our productivity and competitiveness, and to facilitate the growth that we need to deliver inclusion. To do this, we need to extend participation in all post-16 education, in colleges, at universities and in the workplace. We need to tackle inequality of access, which still bedevils us with our history of class divisions. We need also to raise attainment levels at 16, 18 and 19, and in the universities and beyond.
	We must tackle the silent scandal that one in five adults still do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills. We must ensure that individuals attain the key skills that are vital in the new economy. We must work with businesses and trade unions to instil a culture of continuous learning and development in the workplace. We need to improve the quality of all our education and training provision. We still need to maintain our world-class status in innovation and research.
	That is a tough and long agenda, but I believe that we have made a good and impressive start. There has been a real-terms growth in spending. In FE, there has been an increase of 12 per cent. compared with the 12 per cent. cut in real-terms spending by the Tories in the last three years of their Government. This year sees the first ever real-terms increase in funding for students in higher education. We are developing the new and important phase for 14 to 19-year-olds, which will be better tailored to meet the needs of each individual student. Vocational qualifications will sit alongside other qualifications. There will be new qualifications such as AS-levels, which give breadth and flexibility. There will be closer co-operation between institutions, which will make it easier for individuals to progress and achieve.
	We are providing additional and targeted support for individuals to encourage learning and to equalise opportunity. That is why we have educational maintenance allowances and individual learning accounts and why we are piloting opportunity bursaries. We are tackling inequalities in other ways with our excellence challenge, Connexions service and adult basic skills programme. They are all parts of a concerted and logical effort to widen participation. We are making learning more accessible with learning direct, new online centres, support for Investors in People and the union for learning fund. We are making life easier for students, especially for the less confident students, by establishing better links between institutions.
	We recognise that central to our efforts are the teachers in our schools, colleges and universities. That is why this year sees not only a generous settlement of pay in FE—one that is 50 per cent. higher than that which the Tories funded in their last year in office—but the introduction of the £300 million teachers' pay initiative which will reward teachers in FE with up to £2,000 each for their performance.
	The House will see from what I have been able to cover that there is an ambitious and comprehensive agenda. Our task is to deliver it. With so much to do and much that is new, we will of course aim to get everything right first time, but where we recognise that change is necessary and that our plans and policies need to be amended, we will not hesitate to do so promptly and openly.
	That is what we have done with the AS-levels. We got the concept right in principle but we must make changes in how they work to ensure that the qualification is sustainable, rigorous and lasting. Of course, we wish that we had got it right first time, but we are right to respond quickly to people's legitimate concerns. A serious Opposition would recognise that AS-levels are only one part of a wider picture, and would address the myriad policies and programmes that we are pursuing to raise standards, aspirations and achievements. However, the Opposition prefer not to have regard to that serious agenda. For that reason, we tabled our amendment to the motion.
	We have a huge task before us. We are confident that we are putting in place both the resources and the policies to meet the challenges. We are proud of what we have done. We know that we have a great deal more to do, and we look forward to reporting regularly to the House and to our colleagues on the progress that we have made in providing greater opportunity for all in the education and training that we are determined to deliver.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government's achievements in post-16 education which will drive up the nation's skills and extend opportunity for all; applauds the substantial extra resources secured for further education and the reforms through the Learning and Skills Council and rigorous inspection arrangements, which will radically improve standards and the guarantee to all sixth forms that their funding will be maintained in real terms if their pupil numbers do not fall; commends the broadening of the 16-19 curriculum which is widely supported and the timely and measured response of the Government to improve delivery in schools and colleges; welcomes the early success of the Connexions Service and of Education Maintenance Allowance pilots in encouraging more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay in full-time education after the age of 16, the extra resources secured for the university system and the expansion in the numbers of students in higher education; and endorses the strategy to reduce the number of adults lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills which will tackle a problem which has been neglected for far too long.

The Countryside

Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
	That this House deplores the Government's neglect of the continuing crisis in the countryside; condemns its failure to produce any programme for the recovery of agriculture and its refusal to accept the need for a full independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic; further deplores the absence of policies to maintain adequate services in rural areas, including post office and shops, and its failure to address public concern about rural crime; and regrets the pursuit of tax policies which are especially damaging to rural communities and the unsustainable planning policies which continue to threaten greenfield sites.
	This debate is probably the last chance that Parliament will have for more than three months to examine the crisis in the countryside. Many of the problems are in need of urgent attention and are likely to get worse by the time that the House returns in October unless action is taken in the meantime. In welcoming the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box, let me say that I hope that she has recovered her voice and that she will set out the action that the Government propose to take to deal with the crisis.
	I am sorry that the right hon. Lady's name does not appear among the principal six names attached to the Government amendment to the motion. It is a matter of concern—this is not merely a House of Commons point—that the Government appear to believe that it is more important for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to appear among those who tabled the amendment, ahead of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	The extent of the problems in the countryside is well known. There was already a serious crisis before foot and mouth disease struck. Farm incomes have fallen every year since Labour came to power and they are now less than a third of the 1997 level. Jobs in agriculture are being destroyed at a rate of more than 400 a week, and the number has been falling at that rate for the past two years. Many sectors, such as dairy farming, are running at a loss. Last November's report by the Government's better regulation task force stated:
	"Farming has been subjected to a considerable increase in regulatory obligations over recent years."
	Foot and mouth has made that situation worse not only for farming, but for tourism, which has also been devastated. The number of overseas visitors to Britain is down. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has warned that 250,000 jobs in tourism are at risk. The British Hospitality Association has estimated that the domestic tourism market is in decline by £2 billion. What a pity that Ministers spent the spring claiming falsely that foot and mouth was under control, instead of concentrating on eradicating the disease, which would have been the right way to help the tourism industry.
	To revert to the subject of agriculture, the Secretary of State must understand that many people in the countryside now believe that the Government do not care whether farming survives as a substantial British industry. Many fear that Labour would be happy for British consumers to eat nothing but imported food, even though the Government's own Food Standards Agency has admitted that it is sometimes hard to police the safety of such food. The Government's refusal to introduce honesty in food labelling and to apply the same standards to food imports as to home-produced food, as well as their reluctance to claim the help available to farmers from the European Union, encourage fears that they are not concerned about the future of farming. The action, as well as inaction, of Ministers in the past four years has made the crisis worse, not better.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will later deal with agrimonetary compensation in more detail. I shall deal with the foot and mouth epidemic, and in particular with three aspects of it. First, there is a need for a proper recovery plan. If the enhanced farm business advisory service to which the amendment refers, and a bit more rate relief, are all that the Government are going to propose, their actions are ludicrously inadequate. If other measures are on the way, when they will be published? They are needed today.
	When will the Government reach a decision on compensating some of those who have suffered irrecoverable losses because of foot and mouth disease? It is more than three months since I wrote to the former Minister of Agriculture at his request, setting out precisely the categories of loss in respect of which compensation should be provided. Those in need of compensation include farmers who have been unable to sell cattle before they reached the age of 30 months. Does the Secretary of State intend to answer my letter? Apart from compensation, what other steps will the Government take to ensure the survival of many rural businesses, including the remaining small abattoirs, for example?
	Will the Government withdraw their unworkable proposal for a 20-day ban on livestock movements? I trust that the Secretary of State is aware of the truly devastating prospects in the near future, particularly for the sheep sector but for other sectors of the livestock industry as well. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will deal with those issues in greater detail later.
	What strategy, apart from hope, do the Government have for eliminating foot and mouth disease entirely? Do they expect to eradicate it from the United Kingdom before the weather turns colder? What is the latest scientific assessment of the future trend of the disease? It is now more than two months since the Prime Minister claimed that the Government were on the home straight. When will the end of this very long straight heave into sight?
	Many questions arise in the wake of the devastation following the epidemic, all of which point to the need for an inquiry. So far, the Secretary of State has refused to acknowledge that a full, independent public inquiry will be held. However, the Government's handling of the epidemic has so lost the trust of rural communities that confidence can now be restored only by such an inquiry.
	I have already published the terms of reference that we propose for such an inquiry: it must examine the origins of the disease; it must make recommendations for a future prevention strategy; and, crucially, it must analyse the extent to which delays and mistakes by Ministers in the vital few weeks after the first case was discovered on 19 February caused the epidemic to spread much more widely than would have happened if Ministers had paid attention to the lessons of the 1967 epidemic, or acted on the advice that I gave in the House at each stage of the unfolding crisis.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is another category of investigation that needs to be included in that inquiry? That is an analysis of the degree to which incorrect evaluations were made of the presence of the disease, causing whole areas to be closed down for specious reasons. Does he agree that a proper objective analysis of the methods used to diagnose the presence of foot and mouth is a crucial element in the inquiry for which he rightly calls?

Tim Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is right. The inquiry will have to be wide ranging. It will not have to be lengthy, because the science is relatively simple, compared, for example, to that involved with BSE. The inquiry should indeed deal with the aspect to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
	The country needs to know just how many millions of animals could have been saved if the delays and mistakes by Ministers had not occurred. How many businesses might have been preserved? How much money might the taxpayer have saved? The Secretary of State should announce today the Government's commitment to holding an inquiry, even if she is unable to set a date for it to start. Any continued refusal to acknowledge the need for a full independent inquiry will suggest that Ministers are hoping to get away with a whitewash.
	I shall now move on to other aspects of the crisis in the countryside. While the decline in agriculture is weakening the whole rural economy, services are also disappearing or being run down as a direct result of Government policy. Let us take the example of post offices. I recognise that village post offices have been closing for many years, but the closure rate has accelerated alarmingly in recent times. Up to 350 post offices a year closed during Labour's first term of office. That rate has increased to more than 500 in the past 12 months. According to figures supplied by the Countryside Alliance, 333 post offices have closed in the past six months alone. That is more than a dozen every week.
	The viability of up to 8,000 post offices now depends on the business generated by the payment of social security benefits. However, the Government's decision to axe the previous Government's benefit payment card project has now jeopardised the future of every one of those post offices, and postmasters and postmistresses have made it clear that the Government's proposal for a universal bank is simply no substitute.
	We welcome the business rate reductions announced in the last Parliament, but we believe that the threat to the remaining shops, pubs and post offices is so acute that further rate reductions are needed, and that another 1,000 a year off the business rate for vulnerable enterprises in rural areas should be funded by central Government. Equestrian businesses, too, should be exempted from business rates. The Labour party continues its obsession with its wish to ban hunting, but one in 12 of our riding schools closed down in 1999.
	It is not only services that are in decline. Rural areas also suffer discrimination over funding. Shire counties lost an estimated 700 million in taxpayer support during the last Parliament because of changes to the local government funding formula made by the Labour Government. As the Labour group of rural MPs pointed out, country people
	are now paying disproportionately more in tax for less services.
	The council tax for band D taxpayers in the shire counties rose by an average of 234 a year over the past four years. Inner-London local authorities spend 1,326 per head of population, compared with only 787 per head in the shire counties.
	Transport is another source of acute difficulty. Reliance on high fuel taxes as the main instrument of transport policy is uniquely damaging in rural areas, where there is no alternative to using cars for normal social, domestic and business life. As the AA has pointed out, three out of four rural journeys are made by car. As for the Government's much vaunted integrated transport policy, it simply ignores the countryside altogether. Ministers boast of 180 billion in transport spending over the next 10 years, but as the Countryside Alliance has pointed out, of every 1,000 of that spending, just 16p will go to the rural transport fund for expanding rural bus services. That is another reflection of the appallingly low priority that Labour attaches to helping the countryside in its time of need.

Robert Key: To be fair to the Government, we should recognise the fact that in many local authorities, a lot of the lunatic anti-car policies are the brainchild of the Liberal Democrats who control so much of our countryside. Is my hon. Friend as astonished as I am that the best that they can come up with in their amendment is to urge the Government to take action to establish an advisory commission? That is typical. Is that, perhaps, why the majority in constituencies such as mine went up so much, and the Liberal vote went down? Is that why the Liberal vote went down in the seat next to Romsey, and why they lost control of my district council to the Conservatives in the middle of the election campaign? Hooray!

Tim Yeo: In the spirit of fairness that my hon. Friend invokes, and in line with the new reasoned approach to debate, to which my hon. Friends and I are publicly committed, I willingly agree with every word that he has said.
	Crime, and especially fear of crime, are big threats to the quality of life in the countryside. Last year the NFU Mutual insurance company reported a rise of more than a quarter in thefts from business premises in rural areas. The BBC's Countryfile reported that more than half of all farmers had been burgled. More than one in five had suffered arson. Neither the Labour nor the Liberal Democrat amendments refer to crime as part of the crisis in the countryside.
	Neither amendment shows any interest in the constructive suggestions that we have made for parish constables, or for improving police accountability by encouraging police use of premises such as shops or village halls. Law enforcement is also a special concern in the areas in which the minority of travellers who are lawbreakers are to be found. A Joseph Rowntree Foundation study found that one third of travellers interviewed had committed benefit fraud, but the Government are reluctant either to enforce existing laws or to assist in the eviction of illegally camped travellers.

Richard Spring: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the rural county of Suffolk, levels of crime have risen in the past four years by 20 per cent., and that levels of crimes of violence have risen by fully 60 per cent. in the past three years. In comparison with the effects of crime in urban areas, the dramatic ripple effect of attacks on sub-post offices and village shops causes huge problems of morale, and difficulties and tensions that are unique to rural communities.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend, who is a notable champion of those with anxieties in the county of Suffolk, is absolutely right to raise the hideous problem of rising crime, especially violence, in our county, whose crime record is, historically, below average. That issue is raised with me more frequently than any other. The problem is the result of four years of a Labour Government in London and a Labour-Liberal Democrat administration in county hall.
	I repeat the question that I asked the Secretary of State two weeks ago about planning. What influence will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have over planning policy? Is it not extraordinary that something described as a Department for the Environment is not responsible for planning? Does the right hon. Lady understand that the decision in last year's rural White Paper to remove protection for the best and most versatile farmland reinforced the fear that the Government do not regard the survival of farming as important to Britain's future? [Interruption.] I am citing the White Paper. I realise that the Minister for Rural Affairs was absent from the Government for several years. However, he could have used the time usefully by studying their publications.
	Labour's policy of destroying the green belt and bulldozing greenfield sites ignores the wishes of local communities. Ministers ride roughshod over the views and decisions of elected local councils. The regeneration of inner cities is ignored as long as developers get the go-ahead to build on greenfield sites. The Government's approach to planning is unsustainable. By the time they admit that, much irreversible damage will have been done. That is a tragedy.
	Few aspects of policy divide the Government more sharply from the Opposition than the countryside does. Few communities have experienced more Government hostility than those in rural areas. Few industries experiencing serious slump have been treated with less sympathy by the Government than farming has. Few generations have seen more of Britain's green and pleasant land go under the bulldozer than the current generation. Few Governments have displayed more contempt for rural traditions than the Labour Government have. Four more years of those attitudes, policies and decisions will inflict terrible damage on our countryside. I commend the motion to the House.

Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	supports the Government's key priority to eradicate foot and mouth disease as quickly as possible; regrets that the Opposition has failed to notice the Government's recent announcement of an enhanced Farm Business Advisory Service which encourages farmers to develop new income opportunities and an extension of the rate relief scheme to ensure further financial support to businesses in rural areas suffering most from the impact of FMD which will help councils to grant 100 per cent. rate relief to eligible small businesses up to the end of the year, as well as continuing other measures to help the rural economy to recover from the crisis; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper and the England Rural Development Programme; applauds the Government's wider record on public service delivery in rural areas; and calls upon the Government to continue pursuing a strategy based on long term policies to regenerate British agriculture, improve rural services and revitalise the rural economy as a whole.
	My Department is strongly committed to achieving sustainable development, dealing with economic, social and environmental issues together, and encouraging policies such as re-using and recycling materials. However, there is a balance to be struck, and I regret the Opposition's proclivity for re-using and recycling motions and debates in the House. It is precisely 10 sitting days since we held a debate in the aftermath of the Queen's Speech on a motion that raised almost exactly the same issues, in almost the same terms, that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) raises today.
	The Opposition cannot sustain the argument that they have raised the matter again because nothing has changed in those 10 sitting days. Since the earlier debate we have launched a fresh campaign to remind everyone of the need for proper biosecurity. It has been spearheaded in regions of continuing outbreak by visits from multidisciplinary teams led by my Ministers. We have taken steps to tighten the precautions by consulting stakeholders in the farming community and hauliers and others who were involved in movement on and off farms.
	During the debate on 26 June, we were urged to consider afresh any steps that could assist other businesses because of the deadline and the criteria for existing schemes such as rate relief. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced the Government's response this week. We accepted the need not only for continuing schemes of support but for wider eligibility criteria, for which there were calls in the debate.
	Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced concrete plans for an extended scheme of business advice for farmers who are affected by the disease but beginning to plan for their future. Today, the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Agriculture Ministers and I anticipate receiving advice from the Rural Payments Agency that the over-30-months scheme will be restarted on 23 July in Scotland, where rendering capacity will be free earliest, and a week later, on 30 July, in England and Wales. There are still some details to work out and throughput will inevitably be slow, especially in England, but it is welcome news to those who have been waiting for the resumption of the scheme.
	As we tackle those issues, we continue to bear down on the disease and to focus with stakeholders on the shape of a sustainable future for agriculture in the context of a wider rural economy, which is beginning to experience the benefits of our rural development programme.
	For the reasons that I have outlined, there is no valid justification for the Opposition's knee-jerk use of neglect to describe the Government's response. Even if no further steps had been taken in the short time since our previous debate, such criticism would be invalid as the Government have already committed some 800 million to 900 million to those farms where a cull has been necessary. In addition, some 300 million is being made available to other rural businesses. If that is neglect, what name should we attach to the previous Government's programme?
	Listening to Conservative Members, one would believe that Britain's rural areas were a paradise of prosperity until the wicked Labour Government were elected only four years ago. What about all the schools, shops, bus services and post offices that disappeared in the 1980s and 1990s? Were people in the rural communities to blame for that? Did they fail? Is that the Opposition's argument? Unless they argue that individuals and communities whose businesses failed are to blame, how do they have the gall to charge us with neglect?
	Between 1983 and 1997, an average of 30 village schools closed every year, post offices closed in rural and urban areas alike, a third of all villages were left with no local shop and three parishes in four with no daily bus service; yet the hon. Member for South Suffolk says, It's terrible that there are such poor bus services because of the high fuel taxes imposed by the Government. Who instigated the high fuel taxes? The Conservative party.
	In contrast, in the past year two village schools closed and a 40 million small schools support fund was established to raise standards in schools with fewer than 200 pupils. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief has been extended to all village food shops as well as to all sole village pubs and petrol stations and new, small-scale, non-agricultural enterprises on farms. Other steps have been taken to protect post offices. There is an obligation to prevent the closure of rural post offices unless it is unavoidable. We have set out a rural development programme under the rural enterprise scheme.
	Money and support are also available for agri- environmental and farm woodland schemes. Again, the hon. Member for South Suffolk suggested that not enough had been done, although the Government whom he supported and in which he briefly served took no advantage of such schemes. As for rural public transport, some 2,000 new or improved rural bus services have already been provided. The hon. Gentleman made remarks about brownfield and greenfield development. The Conservative party reduced the greenfield sites available in their last year in office, whereas, under the Labour Government, some 30,000 hectaresan area three times the size of Bristolhave been added to the green belt.
	We have nothing for which to apologise to the Conservative party, and I have outlined only the record of delivery so far.

Alistair Burt: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Margaret Beckett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome back to the House.

Alistair Burt: That is kind of the right hon. Lady, and I appreciate it. If she is not in the mood to apologise for the matter that she mentioned, is she aware that in the previous Parliament the number of press and publicity officers in Whitehall Departments increased so that they now outnumber police officers in Bedfordshire? The number of police officers there fell in the last Parliament. Is she prepared to apologise to my constituents for that?

Margaret Beckett: I have some respect for the hon. Gentleman's past record. I hope he appreciates that I shall want to check his figures before I comment on them. Let me take a slightly different example, where I am familiar with the figuresI am not familiar with those that he cites. Conservative Members often claim that the number of civil servants in Whitehall has soared. The number of those who deal with the Government has fallen, whereas the number of police officers, customs officers, immigration officers and those who detect social security fraud has soared. Those people carry out policies that the Conservative party claim to support.
	I have described our record and what we have already achieved. Of course, there is more to come: investment in the post office network, investment in the renewal of market towns under the rural White Paper, investment in affordable homes and investment not only in more transport, including rural bus services, but in a programme of support for the police. In a variety of ways, we are working to deliver a more prosperous future for the rural economy.

Colin Challen: If the Opposition want to bandy figures around, perhaps they can discuss the 20 billion of cuts that they proposed at the election, which would have cut a swathe through all the services that we are developing in rural areas.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Indeed, when the hon. Member for South Suffolk demanded expenditure on this, that and the other, it struck me that in the run-up to the general election the Conservative party complained we were extravagant and investing too much public money. As ever, that does not apply to any scheme that at any given moment it claims to support.
	While we believe that we have the plans and the investment in place to deliver a more prosperous future for the rural economy in the longer term, there remains the pressing need to carry on fighting the disease outbreak, which continues to blight much of our countryside. I want to tell the House of the intensified campaign that we plan in order to bear down more heavily on that disease.
	A campaign targeted on disease hot spots is under way, led by Ministers and supported by vets and scientists. It highlights the fact that biosecurity is crucial in bringing the outbreak to an end, not only for farmers but for the supply trade and those working for the Government on disease eradication.

Bill Wiggin: The campaign that the Secretary of State has touched on is welcomed by my constituents, but they are deeply concerned that the farmers who need the help are not the ones who are already disinfecting. Those who did not disinfect have been through the disease and now have the money, but, going forward, the welfare of the stock will be left to people who do not have the money. Would it not have been better if the money had gone to the farmers who have stock remaining?

Margaret Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and the concerns that are felt across the countryside. Depending on people's circumstances, they are differently affected and I understand the case he makes. Nevertheless, few if any of those farmers would want to have suffered an outbreak of disease or to have lost their flocks, and I know that that is not what he was suggesting.
	We have taken steps to link biosecurity standards with the granting of livestock movement licences. We have agreed new arrangements with local authorities, which will be introduced from tomorrow, on requiring licence applicants to certify that they understand and will comply with the cleansing and disinfection rules and on issuing formal warnings where bad practice is found, leading to the withholding of licences if necessary. Local authorities will also seek better targeting of their enforcement efforts.

Paul Tyler: rose

Peter Atkinson: rose

Margaret Beckett: If hon. Members will forgive me, I want to finish this section of my speech because the House will be interested to hear about the impact.
	We are imposing tighter movement controls around new cases of the disease, focusing restrictions on the 10-km area around new cases and bringing movements in those areas to the absolute minimum for 30 days. I have more to say, but I give way first to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).

Paul Tyler: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, although it was understandable in the early days that responsibilities were confused, we are so many weeks into the crisis that it is inexcusable that trading standards departments and her Department seem to have different criteria for their disinfecting and movement licensing responsibilities? How can better co-ordination be ensured?

Margaret Beckett: I was not aware that such disparities were continuing. I say to the hon. Gentleman and every Member that, on this or any other issue that arises in observing biosecurity and treating the outbreak, my Department will be only too pleased to hear concrete examples of difficulties that Members believe are continuing to arise. We shall pursue and attempt to deal with them.

Peter Atkinson: On movements, can the Secretary of State clear up a problem? Some time ago, she announced that movements from controlled to non-controlled areas would be relaxed, which meant that animals could be taken to more distant abattoirs. One problem with that is that her officials require that the vehicles involved should not stop on the journey. Drivers' hours regulations mean that they have to stop after four and a half hours, so, effectively, the relaxation is helping no farmers in the north-east of England.

Margaret Beckett: I am slightly surprised to hear that because that is a substantial amount of time. Again, if the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to give my Department details of particular cases that have come to his attention, we shall certainly consider the issue that he raises.
	We shall seek the continued assistance and support of the National Farmers Union and other such groups to improve co-operation between the Department and farmers locally in carrying out culling on contiguous premises as quickly as possible. We are keen to continue to provide farmers with as much information as we can on what they need to do to have the best chance of continuing to avoid the disease and, in the unfortunate event of stock having to be destroyed, how they can help to protect their neighbours by working with the Department's staff at all times.
	Looking further ahead, I am also examining ways to improve the incentives for farmers and others to maintain good biosecurity standards. The system that applies in the Netherlands, where levels of slaughter compensation are conditional on farm hygiene standards and other criteria, could not be introduced here immediately because it would require changes to the Animal Health Act 1981. However, it is an interesting idea that I want to consider and discuss with the farming industry and others as a possibility.
	In the same context, I want to examine the arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting infected premises. We need to find ways to ensure that farmers and all who come on and off farms have an incentive to maintain high biosecurity standards. It is not entirely clear that the present system, whereby the taxpayer automatically picks up the entire cost of the cleansing and disinfection operation, is the best way to achieve that. I would like to discuss that with farming industry leaders.

George Osborne: Will the Secretary of State undertake to look into the case of my constituent, Mr. Lewis, who was told by her Department that he could move his cattle and apply for a licence? He was then told by the local vet that the Department was wrong and then told by a trading standards officer that the Department was right. Now the Department has admitted that it was wrong. Is it not vital that the Department gets the information right when it is dealing with people's livelihoods in a desperate crisis?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. It is important that people try to give correct information and I fully appreciate that nothing spreads more difficulty and confusion than people getting a conflicting story. Again, concrete examples brought to the attention of my Department will help to ensure that that happens as rarely as possible.

David Cameron: rose

Elfyn Llwyd: rose

Margaret Beckett: If the hon. Gentlemen will forgive me, I must give way briefly as I am mindful of time and this is a short debate. I give way first to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).

David Cameron: Will the right hon. Lady and her Department give careful consideration to the implications of foot and mouth for zoos and wildlife parks, such as the Cotswold wildlife park in my constituency? The park was badly affected by foot and mouth and had to close. It was not told exactly what to do when the disease broke out. It wanted a decision about vaccination, but no decision was made. It had a meeting with Ministersthe Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) has now departedbut nothing seems to have been done.
	I know that these issues are small in comparison with the farming industry as a whole, but they matter to wildlife parks and zoos. Should they not be considered, not only by the right hon. Lady's Department but in the full independent public inquiry that the Government ought to establish?

Elfyn Llwyd: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that, for the sake of good order, the Secretary of State should deal with the first intervention now, and perhaps respond to the hon. Gentleman later.

Margaret Beckett: I shall do so if that is your preference, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it is sometimes convenient for a couple of interventions to be dealt with together.
	I have taken on board the point made by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). If we can add anything to what has already been said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs will deal with itbut this is exactly the kind of issue that we need to look at in the future, irrespective of the form taken by examination of these events.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I ask the right hon. Lady to ensure that there will be no further confusion between officials from the Department and officials from the devolved Administration in Cardiff? It has been the devil of a job to obtain correct information, and the problems have been exacerbated by the Department's saying that this is a devolved matter while those in Cardiff have said that it is a matter for the Department. The right hon. Lady's predecessor could not answer a number of the questions either. I am not sniping; I am genuinely asking the right hon. Lady whether the lines of demarcation can be made clear, so that the problems are not exacerbated further.

Margaret Beckett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that our aim is always to maintain clear demarcation lines, clear understanding and clear agreement between us and the devolved bodies. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister is an expert in these matters. He will certainly encourage productive liaison and relationships.
	The farming industry and other sections of the rural economy are likely to face further severe difficulties in the autumn, when traditionally there are a large number of livestock movements. However successful we are in bringing the tail of the outbreak to a halt in July or August, there will still be a need for substantial controls over movement of livestock in the autumn and winter to ensure that we keep a grip on the disease, given that undisclosed disease could still be present in the national sheep flock at that time. The more speedily we eradicate the disease, the sooner we can consider greater flexibility of movement.
	The Government are working hard with industry representatives to plan for the autumn, to establish what movements could take place without an unacceptable increase in disease risk. I hope to be able to say more later this month. At the same time, we are assessing the implications of the likely restrictions in autumn livestock movements for support arrangements in the livestock sector and have had preliminary discussions, which are continuing, with farming leaders.
	We shall be using the increased capacity available for serological testing of sheep to continue to the staged clearance of infected areas, alongside a planned approach to testing in disease hot spots. That is designed to help us obtain a better picture of the level of disease in sheep in particular ahead of the autumn livestock movements, and also to make it easier for us to demonstrate to our European Union partners, in due course, that we have a basis for the phased resumption of exports.
	Let me say in parentheses that although much is said in the House about how the Government have not done enough or not done it fast enough by those who wish solely to impute blame to the Government, enormous credit is due to all involved in the hugely increased capacity for serological testing, given its scope for tackling the disease. I speak from memory, but I believe that when the disease broke out we had the capacity to run about 400 tests a week. We have now reached the 100,000 mark or thereabouts, and are heading for a target of between 140,000 and 180,000 by the autumn, probably by October. As I have said, enormous credit is due for that, but it has not always been forthcoming.

Paddy Tipping: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, for the very last time.

Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend has just looked forward to the autumn. Will she look forward a little further? Given the crisis in agriculture that has been happening over a number of years, and the hunger for change that this particular crisis has caused stakeholders in the countryside, can she say a word about the independent commission on food and farming that is currently envisaged?

Margaret Beckett: I can say a word, but it will not be much more than that. I can certainly confirm that the Government have every intention of setting up such a commission and are in continuing discussions about it. I agree that there is a hunger for a more sustained and thorough look at the long-term prospects for the countryside and the agriculture industry, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are more than anxious to foster the debate that is taking place.
	We are working closely with our European partners, especially the Commission. Jim Scudamore, the chief veterinary officer, and David Hunter, director of the departmental agriculture group, will be in Brussels tomorrow to update the Commission on what we are doing to eradicate the disease, and to discuss the difficulties that we shall face in the autumn.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Beckett: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I really ought to finish as this is a very short debate.
	We have always said that there will be an inquiry when the outbreak is over and that it will be thorough but not long drawn out. We all want to get at the facts and to identify what could have been done better, but also to identify what was handled extremely wellalthough the exact nature and form of the inquiry remain, as ever, a matter for the Prime Minister
	Without prejudice to the issue of an inquiry, we have also always said that there are lessons to be learned from the epidemic, including on disease control policy for future outbreaks. We need to consider the case for better animal identification, especially for sheep, improved movement records, the possibility of controls on the movement of cattle and sheep, as there are already for pigs, and stronger controls on the import of meat. My Department is already co-ordinating a cross-Whitehall initiative to improve activity in this regard. In the longer term we need to look at better biosecurity by markets, dealers and farmers. The Commission has announced a review that will cover some, if not all, of these issues and we are helping to organise a conference in Brussels in the autumn to provide a forum for discussing future foot and mouth disease policy options, including vaccination.
	I acknowledge the real problems in rural areas, from the immediate consequences and aftermath of the disease to the long-standing deterioration in rural services over which the Conservative party presided with so much complacency for so long. We are not complacent. We are determined to work with all who have real concern for rural areas to deliver real, long-term improvement. It is on that, not on the empty rhetoric of Opposition Members, that in time we shall be prepared to be judged.

Malcolm Bruce: I am sorry that the Secretary of State could not give way, but I appreciate the time pressures. I have a number of questions to ask and I certainly hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs, will endeavour to answer them in detail.
	As the debate is entitled The Countryside in Crisis we can acknowledge that the fact that the countryside has been in a near permanent state of crisis in recent years is why the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had to go. Unfortunately, so farI stress, so farthere is little evidence that the new super-Department has yet undergone a cultural transformation. Indeed, wherever I go people tell me that, under a new name, MAFF lives. Most of us want to see it die. Crisis management remains the over-riding characteristic.
	The tragedy is that after the disasters of BSE, the collapse of the pig market and lower grain prices, farming was just beginning to get back on its feet when it was hit by the foot and mouth epidemic. We cannot avoid facing up to the fact that for many years under successive Governments we have dangerously lowered our defences against monitoring and controlling the spread of disease. So far we have had only crisis response to deal with the situation.
	The number of vets in Government service has undoubtedly been reduced. The independence of much of the advice available to Government has been compromised because most of the institutions have been forced to bid for commercial contracts alongside their Government work. As a result it is extremely difficult for those in pursuit of commercial contracts always to give advice that might be required but could prejudice their ability to attract new contracts. I hope that the new Department will address that.
	In a crisis an urgent response is needed. Farmers everywhere are understandably becoming anxious about the scale of livestock movement restrictions. The Secretary of State gave some indication of changes to the restrictions, but also made it clear that the restrictions would continue into the autumn and winter. What honest prospect does she have of a timetable for reopening export opportunities? If that does not happen in a few months, we shall have to address yet another crisis. Ministers must be aware that a general 20-day restriction on movements is unworkable for many farms and a more flexible approach is needed.
	I hope that in the inquiry the Government will not only look at movement restrictions and vaccination options, but will also consider the possible role of quarantine in dealing with animal disease. There is scope for building that into a system in a way that we have not done to date.
	Right now, many sheep farmers face ruin if the ban on sheep exports remains in force during the autumn. In my part of the UK, it is estimated that up to 70 per cent. of the lambs produced are dedicated for export, mainly to France. I am sure that Ministers will understand that, despite the fact that we in the north of Scotland have, to date, remained a foot and mouth free zone, if that market is closed the consequences will be disastrous. Will Ministers consider the introduction of a welfare scheme for unmarketable ewes and lambs? Will they also seek private storage aid for the thousands of tonnes of lamb that currently have no market? At the start of the outbreak, I suggested that such measures would be necessary and, as the months go by, they become more and more urgent. I am concerned that Ministers do not yet appear even to have opened discussions. I hope that they will do so.
	The area that I represent is also a major pig-producing region: half the pigs raised in Scotland are produced in the north-east of Scotland. Like areas throughout the country, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of pigs due to the market difficulties, although they were just beginning to resolve themselves when the crisis struck. Indeed, some operators had got back into profit for the first time in two or three years only a month or two before the disease struck.
	At the start of the epidemic, the market for cast sows was inevitably lost, because 90 per cent. of them went to the plant where the outbreak was first discovered. The problem is that there is no effective market for cast sows. Will the Government consider a welfare scheme for culled sows? It will be urgently needed.
	The House will realise that I represent a quality livestock area, so there is no livestock sector that is not important to the north-east of Scotlandas is the case in many parts of the UK. I was pleased by the Secretary of State's announcement of the reintroduction of the over-30-months scheme on 23 July in Scotland and on 30 July in England and Wales. That will remove one uncertainty that has been worrying many producers. It may be a forlorn question, but will the Minister for Rural Affairs tell us whether there will be any consideration of the extra costs incurred by those farmers who have to retain cattle for several months? They have to feed cattle which have no productive use, so it would be proper to expect additional compensation to be allowed for animals which haveto use a colloquialismbeen eating their heads off.
	We have been living with the effects of BSE for a long time. My strong concern is that the beef export regime is unworkable and that it is unfair to British producers. I have raised this matter in the House previously: technically, we have lifted the ban, but, practically, we have not. As the number of BSE cases in the UK continues to decline, while it is still rising on the continent, it is time for the Government to press for a standard EU-wide regime that will at last enable prime British and Scottish beef once again to reach tables throughout the world. Let us not deceive ourselves: that is not happening at present.
	I pray in aid a lady who deals in meat in northern Italy; she rejoices in the name of Francesca Piccolini. She said that throughout the period of the beef export ban she had scoured the world looking for beef of the quality that she had imported from Scotland, but that she had conspicuously failed to find anything of such quality. We can still produce that quality beef and get it on to the tableeven in the House of Commons, where the beef supplied is produced in my constituency. However, we cannot put beef of that quality on the table of foreign purchasers because the regime does not allow us to do so. That is absurd and must be addressed. I hope that Ministers agree.
	Of course we require a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak. I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that we must press the Government hard on that point. I remain dissatisfied when I am told that we have to leave it to the Prime Minister, who will ensure that there is a proper inquirywhatever that iswhen the outbreak is over, even though we do not know when that will be.
	I understand the argument that an inquiry cannot be started perhaps until the outbreak has finished, but it would help if we knew what kind of inquiry it will be, that it will be publicwe have had no such assuranceand who may submit evidence to it. I find it odd that the Government do not recognise that that is probably in their own interest, given the rumours circulating that suggest that there is even Government complicity in the spread of food and mouth diseasenothing that I accept, but Ministers must know that it is being said. Surely it is in the Government's interest to make it clear now what form the inquiry will take.
	The catalogue of disaster clearly shows that a fundamental review of our approach to disease control is required. Our defences have been lowered under successive Governments, and we need to address the extent to which the reduction in the number of vets, the compromised research institutions and the cuts in customs control have contributed to the increasing problems of disease, and to find out what needs to be done to put it right.

Gordon Prentice: The hon. Gentleman refers to disease control, but what is the official Liberal Democrat policy on vaccination? He will be aware that Lord Greaves, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats in the other place, has called for immediate vaccination, but I am not entirely sure if that is the hon. Gentleman's policy.

Malcolm Bruce: It might be Lord Greaves's policy. The policy on vaccination has been recognised; it is an agreed international policy, to which we have signed up. Indeed, I have said on several occasions that the policy cannot be changed half way through a crisis. I certainly think that vaccination should be considered, but it would have been quite wrong to change the policy mid-term. I have also said that the role that quarantine could play should be considered. A public inquiry should look into those issuesthat is what it is for.
	Common sense tells me, and it should tell the House, that the rundown in the quality, availability and volume of advice for the Government has been a factor in our problems, and we should consider what we need to do to raise our defences once again, to ensure that we can monitor and control disease penetration into this country. Frankly, our ability to establish public confidence internally and any significant export operations in the long term depend on our being able to reassure people that we have the matter under control, and we patently have not had it under control for the past 10 years or more.
	I want to press home a point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who asked the Ministerhe did not get much of a replyabout the rural commission. It was a Labour manifesto pledge. It was set out as though it was a radical cultural change and, indeed, a justification for the creation of a new Department. Six weeks have passed since the election and we are getting no information

Alun Michael: Six weeks and it has not been done!

Malcolm Bruce: Not only has nothing been done, but we have not been told how and when it will be done and who will be involved. There is plenty of speculation outside the House about the rural commission. One such speculation is that it will be entirely an internal Government commission, that it will not involve outside consultation, that it will be by Lord Haskins and that it will report by the autumn. If that is not true, will the Government tell us what is true, and then we shall all know what we are working with. In the interests of the Government who say that they wish to engage, how on earth can Opposition politicians or those in the wider community contribute to such an operation if they do not know its format and timetable? Why are the Government so coy? It would be helpful if Ministers would give us a little more information than they have so far.
	Some useful experience is emerging from Scotland, which has had a Rural Affairs Departmentat the Liberal Democrats' insistencefor two years. In the past two weeks, my Liberal Democrat colleague, Scotland's Minister for Rural Development, Mr. Ross Finnie, has produced a useful forward strategy for Scottish agriculture that contains some valuable pointers. Particularly welcome is the rebalancing of 70 million in recognition of the fact that farmers need to diversify their income base. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary jeers, but his own party endorses and supports those proposals, which could usefully be adopted by a new Department.
	The suggestion is that farmers should be able to apply for funding to support not just farming operations, but environmental management, tourism and other business projects that can generate income and employment opportunities. That approach has also been reinforced by Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament in their review of the common agricultural policy. Co-ordination and clarification of the relationship between the Department headed by the Secretary of State and the Departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be helpful.
	I shall give a constituency example. A rendering plant in my constituency operates to a rather poor standard and that generates many complaints and much trouble. However, when we complain to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, we are told that it is powerless to enforce controls because it has been told by DEFRA that the overriding responsibility is to process and render the consequences of foot and mouth. That may be the case, but environmental standards should not be compromised at the same time. Who is calling the shots? Why cannot we have both effective rendering management and good environmental standards?
	The Scottish strategy also recognises the need for UK-wide and EU-wide initiatives on livestock movements, which I have mentioned; on a scheme for establishing traceability in sheep, which is clearly difficult but desirable; on eradicating scrapie; on reducing the number of transactions involving live animals; and on buy-out schemes for farmers approaching retirement. They are all useful initiatives and I hope that they will be the subject of genuine debate. A commission could usefully consider them, and practices being developed in Scotland could inform that process.
	If we are considering a holistic approach to rural services and to the rural economysomething that the hon. Member for South Suffolk was anxious to stressmore vision will be needed. We tabled an amendment to the motion, because simply cataloguing the problems does not take us very far. It is important that we find ways of moving forward.
	It is true that post offices continue to close and are doing so at an accelerating rate. Transport services are also under threat. The Secretary of State said that 2,000 new bus services had been introduced, but I presume that she meant in England or in England and Wales. In Aberdeenshire, 1,600 services were withdrawn last month because Stagecoach, which is suffering from the losses on the railways, felt unable to sustain them and the local authority was quite incapable of finding the money to keep more than a fraction of them going. We are not moving forwards, but back.
	Community hospitals in rural areas are under review and, in many cases, rural authorities do not have the resources to pick up the pieces. The Secretary of State also said that there had been only two school closurespresumably in Englandbut there was one in my constituency in the last 12 months. It took place under a Labour chair of education and was approved by a Labour Education Minister despite the highly dubious case made.
	When services are cut and closures take place in rural areas, no one takes responsibility for the transfer costs to the citizens living in those areas. Agencies say that they cannot sustain the cost of a service, so they close it down and they pass the cost to people in rural areas to pick up. The Government should consider requiring any agency to capitalise that cost and for it to be taken into account before any closure goes ahead. That might very well alter many of the decisions made.
	The irony is that more and more people are moving into the countryside when services are diminishing. That is madness. We need a moratorium on the reduction in services and we needI hope that we will get ita radical approach in the new Department to rural policy and services. However, it would help if Ministers could provide us with some answers before the House rises for the summer

Joyce Quin: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in the debate and I very much welcome the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The new Department can successfully bring together countryside interests in a forward-looking way and an environmentally sustainable way. Both aspects are important. The new Department should certainly see agriculture as part of the wider rural economy and in the wider context at regional, national and European levels. That is vital if agriculture is to recover from the foot and mouth disaster.
	I do not intend to concentrate on the foot and mouth crisis, however. That is not because I do not consider it serious, because it obviously is; nor is it because I am not prepared to defend what my colleagues and I did in the previous Ministry. Indeed, I welcome the inquiry and believe that some of its findings will place the Department in a good light. However, given the scale of the disaster and the stark differences between the recent outbreak and that of 1967, about which I have spoken several times, it will certainly be true that not everything was handled perfectly,

Alan Beith: Farmers in my constituency are usually very critical of Ministers, but they have paid tribute to the work of the right hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) while they were office. I thank her for meeting my constituents during the outbreak to discuss their problems and remind her that at such a meeting she expressed sympathy for those who had to experience the burial of carcases in vast quantities at Widdrington. She said that the Government needed to recognise their contribution when forming future policy. Is she still of that view?

Joyce Quin: Indeed I am. The right hon. Gentleman's constituents made a strong case. That site is located in a part of the country that has experienced many environmental problems over a long period. I thank him for his kind words. It is my experience that one is paid more compliments on leaving government than as a Minister in government. None the less, I am grateful for his comments.
	I want to consider the future of farming and agriculture. By contrast with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), Labour Members are of the view that farming has an important future. Food production is agriculture's role first and foremost. I believe that the British farming industry can supply a good proportion of our food requirements, and that applies both to meat products and to the fruit and vegetables that are produced by our horticulture sector. No doubt we will continue to import products that we cannot produce ourselves, but I hope that we can rebuild our export markets.
	Labelling is important and I do not accept the Conservatives' criticisms of the Government on that. Country of origin labelling, which exists for fruit and vegetables and some meat, is an important aspect of giving consumers information and allowing them to make an informed choice. I hope that Ministers will continue the work of the previous Department in stressing concerns about labelling at a European level and by increasing the amount of clear and accurate information that consumers across the single market can expect.
	Marketing schemes are important to help farmers add value to their products. As a Minister, I was struck by some of the successful marketing schemes, such as the fell-bred marketing brand in the Lake district. Successful work on branding has also been carried out in Scotland, Wales and parts of England. Those schemes help to build consumer loyalty to brands and often help them to buy regional and local produce, which is often a good trend.
	I was also much taken by the growth in the regional and speciality food market. I pay tribute to some of the regional food organisations, in particular Taste of the West, which has a good record in promoting regional foods in the south-west and winning markets much further afield. Co-operation along the food chain is important, and for that reason I hope that the code of practice, which will mean that supermarkets treat their suppliers reasonably and fairly, will work. I am sure that those of us who are interested in these issues will be keen to monitor its operation in the weeks and months ahead.
	The role that agriculture plays in countryside and environment issues must be taken fully into account. When we are looking at the relationship between farming and the environment, we must consider things like support for organic farming. I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has been taking part in a debate on organic farming in Westminster Hall. I know that he personally has a long-standing commitment to that sector, and that the Government have considerably increased the funding for organic farming.
	Happily, the Government have expanded the countryside stewardship schemes, which go back several years, and it is important that they continue to do so. We must recognise that there are parts of conventional farming that are much more environmentally sensitive than they used to be. I think of the programme linking the environment and farmingknown as LEAFand of the fact that much modern farming equipment is able, even when it is applying pesticides, to target crops much more sensitively than in the past. Developments in conventional farming are making it more environmentally benign. All those issues will continue to be important.
	I strongly believe that the regional dimension is important to the future of agriculture in our country. That is why I welcome the fact that MAFF, now DEFRA, has appointed staff to the Government regional offices to ensure that agriculture is fully factored into regional economic strategies. We need to consider the role that agriculture can play in exploiting and developing the economic potential of the different regions. I hope that the regional development agencies will give full weight to agriculture in their strategies and exploit as effectively as possible the links between rural and urban areas and between farming and food industry jobs. Regional economic growth and jobs will depend on such initiatives, which will be enormously helpful to the future of agriculture.
	No speech about the future of agriculture would be complete without a reference to the common agricultural policy, and indeed the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) referred to it in his contribution. The policy is still in need of profound change, but the prospects for that change are better than they have ever been. The CAP is not appropriate in the present circumstances, because it supports certain agriculture sectors and not others.
	The policy has been slow to reform, so it has tended to be backward looking and only with great difficulty can it withstand pressures from the World Trade Organisation and enlargement of the European Union, as well as pressures for greater compatibility between environmental protection and agriculture policies. As I said, however, the prospects for change are greater than ever before; certainly, a helpful start was made with the development of the second pillar of the policy, the rural development regulation. That has allowed the introduction of schemes that are more flexible in their support of agriculture sectors and more forward looking on the subject of how farmers can add value to their products.
	The changes agreed, especially at the time of the Berlin summit, are helpful, and we have seen in the European Council of Ministers that an increasing number of Europe's Agriculture Ministers take a more forward- looking and reformist approach to the common agricultural policy; the change in Germany is particularly positive. During my last months as a Minister at MAFF, I was aware of the growing number of allies that the UK Government were gathering in relation to agricultural reform.
	It will be important that the UK Government protect British interests and make sure that any new rules that emerge from the proposed changes do not give unfair advantage to one party or another. However, I believe that the UK Government are excellently placed to build alliances with like-minded countries, so I conclude by wishing my colleagues every success in that important task of reform.

Boris Johnson: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), and to speak in a debate briefly attended by my old comrade the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who has now left the Chamber. He defeated me soundly in 1997, so living up to his nickname of Jones the Vote, and it is a great honour to share the Chamber with him now.
	As is conventional in maiden speeches, I pay tribute to my predecessor. As many in south Oxfordshire and elsewhere have not hesitated to point out, Michael Heseltine is a hard act to follow, so I approach this moment with much the same sense of self-doubt as Simba in The Lion King. For the benefit of those who have not seen Walt Disney's film, there is a poignant moment when Simba, following Mufasa across the veld, compares his own paws with the vast pawprints left by that great beast; such are my feelings today. I have no arboretum in south Oxfordshire, merely a sort of lop-sided laurel. I struggle to run one magazine, whereas Michael told me that at the last count he had 267. He served the people of south Oxfordshire well for 26 years and in that time he was one of the biggest figures on our political landscape.
	As Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael liberated millions from the captivity of state-owned and state-controlled housing. When some Members of Parliament were unilateralist, he stood out against a Soviet menace that is now almost forgotten and played his part in the end of the cold war. He worked tirelessly in the 1980s for the people of Liverpool and other deprived areas, and in so far as there is a Canary wharfHezzagrad, as people call the great city that has arisen in the docklandsit is thanks to his energy and drive. It is fair to say that we did not agree on every detail of European policy, but far more united us than divided us. Even when Michael was Deputy Prime Minister, he was, it is acknowledged everywhere in south Oxfordshire, an excellent constituency Member of Parliamentand what a constituency it is.
	There might be some present who are under the impression that Henley is merely the town of Henley, so it might be helpful if I give them a little guided tour. Suppose one is travelling on the M40; just before junction 6, one suddenly comes to that dramatic cuttingthe Khyber pass of the Chilternswhere ahead, spread out like a land of dreams, is the plain of south Oxfordshire. That, roughly speaking, is my constituency. That is the view that Jude the Obscure saw when, on that spot, he dreamed of education: far in the distance on a clear day one can just make out the spires of the ancient university town, now in need of some protection from senior figures in the Labour Government. Away to the south, one sees the Whittenham clumps, which were famously painted by Constable, and the towers of Didcot power station, which were not.
	If, unlike Jude, one turns south at junction 6, one comes to the small town of Watlington, with its first-rate fish and chip shop and venerable town hall. One would not want to have a car crash in Watlington because, apart from anything else, the Government have closed the local cottage hospitala fate that has befallen many cottage hospitals throughout the country. Labour Members will of course be delighted to know that the hospital is now likely to be rebuilt, thanks to an enormous concerted private initiative taken by the people of the area. I do not know whether that is in accordance with Government policy these daysit is hard to tellbut let us hope so.
	Even if one were not injured in that car crash, one would certainly not want one's car to be out of action for very long in Watlington. One might have an urgent appointment in Thame to the north but not want to stump up for the petrol. Let us not be under any illusionsmany of my constituents find it very difficult to afford petrol these days, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was saying. Someone might want to use the bus. I have news for the House: one can get a bus from Watlington to Thame only on Tuesdays and come back only on Saturdaysbut let us suppose that, one way or another, one succeeds in doing so.
	People will find in Thame a vibrant town that holds regular busy farmers' markets of the kind that the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West was describingand wonderful events they are. The farmers will say how badly affected they have been by foot and mouth, how fast their incomes have been falling and how much they depend on such occasions to market their produce. They will also say, I am afraid to report to the House, how disappointed they are that there was not more in the Queen's Speech about rural affairs than the promise to ban hunting.
	Armed with some produce from the farmers' market, one might meander south. Let us suppose that one gets a bit lost. If one is lucky, one will end up at a place called Ewelmeit has a claim to be the centre of English literature and language, as Chaucer's niece is buried therewhere a wonderful pub called the Shepherd's Hut, selling very good ale and food, is to be found. It is doing very well, unlike many other pubs in the area that are not so lucky and, as hon. Members will know, have been closing in great numbers.
	One reason for such closures is that people are of course worried about drink driving and the punitive measures taken by the police. I of course support all measures to deter reckless driving, but want in my maiden speech to make one legislative proposal. The Chancellor, who I am disappointed to say is not present, should offer a tax break to Brakspear's 2.5, which is a newly developed beer that I have sampled and which I assure the House is utterly delicious. One can drink three pints of it without coming near exceeding the limit. It would be very good if it were taxed at an appropriate rate, thereby encouraging sobriety when driving and helping local pubs that are otherwise closing at such a rate. Those who have the Chancellor's ear may be inclined to pass that on to him.
	Thus fortified, one passes through many scenic villages in south Oxfordshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk has pointed out, such places have already suffered the closure of post offices and many varieties of unsuspected rural hardship. Eventually, one arrives in Henley, the town that gives its name to my constituency. It is of course famous for its regatta and bringing back a great haul of gold from the recent Sydney olympics, thereby doing something to redress the Chancellor's recent wanton disposal of bullion on the markets. Henley is of course also this week the scene of a most wonderful festival, which I commend to all Members.
	Not everywhere in my constituency is as lucky as Henley. There are pockets of genuine deprivation, problems of poverty and problems of prosperity. For every affluent estate agent in south Oxfordshireand there are quite a fewthere are dozens, if not hundreds, of young people who cannot afford housing in the area and whose needs must be attended to.
	I want to explain why I am in politics and sought election. We always say in our pious way that we want to make a difference, to do out bit for our country. Of course that is true; I hope that the House will not mind if I offer it that piety. It is perhaps especially true for someone who spent a lot of time sitting in the Press GalleryI am not supposed to mention that place; I hope that hon. Members will forgive the solecismas a journalist. I do not condemn those who have taken the socialist viewI do not know whether they are still socialistsand do not condemn those who have believed in socialism. I can see why they do, and why they are motivated to root out injustice and build a better a society. However, I think that Conservatism offers a better and broader understanding of human nature, which is why it has been so successful over the past 200 years and why it is now sedulously imitated.
	There is a hidden wisdom in old ways of doing things. If you get the state off people's backs and allow them to get on with their lives, not only will they be more contented, broadly speaking, but they will generate more of the wealth that society will always need to help the poorest and those who genuinely cannot help themselves. That is one-nation Toryism; it is a wholly reasonable creed. If I have one criticism of the framing of the motionof course, I do notit is that we have talked too much as if there is a great insulation between the crisis in the countryside and metropolitan England and London. The simple fact is that yesterday's newspapers show that musicals are closing in London because of the foot and mouth crisis.
	The crisis in the countryside affects everyone. I make that point for the first time in the House as Member for Henley; I am proud to be given the chance to make it again, as I shall on behalf of all my constituents in the months and years ahead.

David Hamilton: I do not intend to attempt to try to follow the entertainment that we have just had, but, as a socialist, I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on his contribution and his tribute to his predecessor. If I remember rightly, his predecessor closed 32 pits throughout Britain and had a hairstyle not unlike that of the hon. Gentleman. I shall see with interest how we can work together on a number of issues over the next four or five years.
	I shall make one or two observations about comments that have been made about the countryside in crisis, before going on to the main part of my maiden speech. As a councillor in Midlothianthere are 17 Labour members on the council and one Liberal DemocratI had meetings with farmers and others, as I represented a semi-rural area. It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that we all need to work together. We rise and fall together; it is not about one community as opposed to another community. Foot and mouth has highlighted that in many ways.
	I have recently been meeting farmers, who have raised the same issues as those raised by the Opposition. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) talked about how high council tax is; a tenant farmer who lived in a big mansion complained to me that he had to pay council tax, but never had the opportunity to own the house because he was a tenant farmer. Such complaints are made, but we should remember that the Government helped badly paid farm workers by establishing the minimum wage, giving them some of the biggest increases that they have ever had. We should remember that it is not just about the farmers, but the farm workers who reside in the countryside and have to look after farms.
	In addition, I am pleased that we work well with people from the borders. We shall work with hon. Members from the borders to promote the Waverley line, which is extremely important in opening up the countryside. It is important that we start to look at developing the countryside's economic base.
	It is a great honour to speak in the House as a representative of my home county of Midlothian, the place of my birth and, of course, the constituency of a man whom some may remember, W. E. Gladstone, Midlothian's most prominent politician to date, who made his mark in Parliament. Since its early years Midlothian has undergone many changes in size and population. Since the war there have been four Labour Members of Parliament: David Pryde, James Hill, Alex Eadie and, of course, my predecessor, Eric Clarke. They all had one thing in common: they were all from a mining background. Alex Eadie will be remembered by some in this place as Under-Secretary of State for Energy between 1974 and 1979. He spent 21 years in the House and did not forget his roots. He was followed by my predecessor, Eric Clarke.
	As it is the custom of the House, I shall say a few words about Eric, who came to this place in 1992. I believe that his contribution was a good one, and not only because he successfully introduced a private Member's Bill or because he was a junior Whip for a period. I believe that being a Whip would have suited him. He was commonly thought of as rather a grumpy person, but having known him for more than 30 years I can assure the House that Mr. Grumpy had a soft centre. Indeed, in the last Prime Minister's Question Time of the previous Parliament, I saw the then hon. Member for Midlothian thanking all Members for their friendship, and that was sincere. I hope that the House will join me in wishing Eric a long and happy retirement.
	The House will remember that Eric raised the question of a group of workers, and I to pledge to carry the banner forward. I refer to victimised minersan issue that is still a running sore after 17 years. I believe that the Government have made some progress with the repeal of parts of trade union legislation. They have made major changes to enable thousands of workers to claim industrial compensation, having recognised the contribution that they made over the years. They are the first Government to do so.
	Workers, including miners, and their families have been able to claim. They have received benefit for vibration white finger. Thousands of miners and widows and their families are receiving millions of pounds through chronic obstructive pulmonary restriction funding, although it has taken too long for some of the payments to be made. That is a major change and a major improvement to the lives of many people throughout Scotland and, indeed, Britain.
	Good people such as Alex Bennet, James Hogg, Robert Hogg, Michael Hogg, Arthur Blackhurst, Billy Anderson, George Laing, Jimmy Lennie and George Purcell are only a few of the 206 Scottish miners who were sacked during the 198485 strike. Many have returned to work. Unfortunately, all too many did not get the opportunity to do so. It is already too late for some, such as my good friend Dyett Murdoch, who has since passed away, but their families are still looking for justice.
	There were many casualties during the dispute. There have been 17 long years for Britain's sacked miners and their families. They lost not only redundancy payments but, more importantly, some of them lost their pension rights. If Members are wondering why I feel so strongly, it is because I am one of the sacked Midlothian minersthere were 46 at Monktonhall colliery, 36 at Bilston Glen colliery and five at Newbattle workshops. I am proud to be a victimised miner, and to be the first to enter Parliament. The phrase down but not out comes to mind when I say that. I am proud also to carry the banner on behalf of miners and their families.
	I hope that the House will agree that 17 years is long enough. We should have a cross-party agreement to right the wrong. I remind Conservative Members that even after the dispute up to 10 Tories signed petitions to the effect that the miners should have been reinstated after the dispute.
	On a more upbeat note, over the last decade mining has declined and Midlothian has changed dramatically. Thousands were employed in only a dozen industries, and now dozens are employed in 1,000 industries. That shows that small micro industries have developed throughout the area.
	The old industries may have gone, but they still play a significant role. An example is Monktonhall, the colliery where I used to work. The council has commissioned studies into the use of warm water from old mine workings to provide energy for 4,000 houses and industrial units in the largest greenfield development site in Scotland. Essentially, a mine water heat pump would pump water that had been geothermally heated from the bottom of the mine. The water would then be circulated to consumers and returned to the mine, where it would be reheated. If the heat pumps were operated using a green source of electricity, the heat delivered would be truly renewable energy without any greenhouse gas emissions. This renewable energy requires a capital investment, perhaps from one of the funds that have been announced by the Government, and a commitment from the developers to provide the appropriate infrastructure.
	Finally, one of the most exciting challenges in Midlothian comes from biotechnology. Hon. Members will have heard of Dolly. We are in the process of combining research and manufacturing in Midlothian with the development of the Gowkley Moss land acquisition, to which I look forward. As a councillor, I have asked the director of education to work closely with our six secondary schools and the local college and universities to support employment opportunities in biotechnology, which now employs more than 1,000 people in the locality.
	I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House for the kindness shown to me as a new Member. I have no doubt that that will be shortlived, thanks to the Opposition and some of those on the Government Front Bench, when I start to express my views. I have been given a great privilege by the people of Midlothian, and I shall do everything in my power to repay that privilege.
	We are at the beginning of a new millennium. As we meet the new challenges, I hope that we will not forget the values for which many of us came into politicsfree education, a free health service and support for the weak in our society, for those who are disabled and for our elderly. I feel sure that when we say that we are the fourth largest economy in the world, those people will benefit, along with all of us, and not just a few.

Hugo Swire: It may seem presumptuous for me, as I am about to make my own maiden speech, to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on theirstwo excellent speeches, giving in their own way a vignette of their parts of the world, which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will clearly represent so ably in Parliament.
	Anyone with political aspirations has rehearsed the moment of their maiden speech many times over. I am sure that I can rely on the indulgence of the House in making mine. The full terror of the occasion crosses the political divide.
	It is the custom in a maiden speech to refer to those who have gone before. Even if that were not the case, I should anyway want to start my speech by paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir Peter Emery, who is well known to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to others in the House.
	Sir Peter's political career, which was lengthy, began with the ritual blooding of fighting so-called unwinnable seatsin his case, Poplar, which he contested in 1951, and Lincoln in 1955. Unsuccessful but undeterred, like so many of us, he went on to win Reading by 3,942 votes from Ian Mikardo. He represented Reading from 1959incidentally, the year in which I was bornuntil 1966, when he lost to John Lee by just over 4,000 votes. In 1967 Sir Peter succeeded Robert Mathew in a by-election as the Member for what was then the Honiton division, with a majority of 16,000. In 1997, following boundary changes, the major part of that seat became East Devon, which Sir Peter represented until the election.
	Sir Peter's record is one of unstinting service to his constituents and to the House. He was, I believe, an important influence on the Modernisation Committee, and I know that the House found his advice, based on many years of parliamentary experience, to be of enormous help. His retirement is truly a loss to the House.
	The House's loss is my gain, and I stand here humble and honoured to have been chosen as Sir Peter's successor to represent East Devon, which can lay claim to be one of the most beautiful parts of our countryside. From the River Exe in the west to the borders of Dorset in the east, it includes the coastal resorts of Exmouth, whose foundations lie in Roman times and which was originally a busy fishing village but is now more of a tourist resort; Budleigh Salterton, which takes its name from the salt pans that were used to collect local salt for preserving by the monks at nearby Otterton priory; and Hayes Barton, birthplace of that great Elizabethan explorer, Sir Walter Raleigh who, I suppose, in his own way did so much for the tobacco industry and who, if alive today, would almost certainly have just returned from an overseas trip promoting his product. Incidentally, I hope that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will support me in my ambition to relocate his statue from Raleigh green in Whitehall to his birthplace in East Budleigh.
	The charming seaside town of Sidmouth, near which I live, with its Regency terraces and villas, was immortalised by Sir John Betjeman. The small village of Beer was once famed for fishing and smuggling. The waiting women made lace there and so contributed to the foundation of the Honiton lace industry. Seaton, where the Romans landed and the Fosse way started, and nearby Axmouth, which is thought to be the site of the major Roman station of Uxelis, and from which until the late 19th century trading vessels sailed regularly to and from London, are also situated in the area. Those towns, together with a largely rural hinterland, including the towns of Axminster, which is famous for the synonymous carpet factory, and Colyton, represent my constituency.
	East Devon, which is so rich in history, is not only about landscape and coastline, although I shall return to those aspects shortly. In Lympstone, we are proud to have the training camp of the Royal Marines. Exmouth, our largest conurbation, is home to one of the country's biggest secondary schools, which is also the country's largest community college. That contrasts with Colyton grammar school, which always scores highly in Ofsted reports and has just achieved long overdue beacon school status.
	If I am guilty of anything this afternoon, it is that I may have depicted East Devon as a place from an England of yesteryear rather than of today. To an extent, that is truthful. Mercifully, we do not suffer from some of the problems and tensions that have been seen in other parts of the country. Although crime is a recognisable problem, it is not out of control.
	Beneath that bucolic veneer, however, lie some all-too-real problems, one of which is rural poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) articulated the problems of farmers yet again today. Throughout the foot and mouth crisis, he has articulated the suffering of my farmers better than anyone whom I can think of. Our farmers and suppliers are desperate in the wake of foot and mouth, although to date we have been relatively lucky in having had only one reported outbreak. Our local magistrates courts in Axminster and Exmouth have been closed. Our infrastructure, roads, local shops and post offices, all of which people in the countryside depend upon, are under constant threat, just as our countryside itself is threatened by over-development.
	A great number of my constituents are on fixed incomes. Some 27 per cent. of the population of East Devon consists of people aged over 65, which puts a strain on the health service. In some parts of the constituency, more than 6 per cent. of the population is over 85. Although our cottage hospitals are as good as any in the land, the pressures on our privately run care and residential homes are now truly worrying.
	In my constituency, the income of our four main coastal towns is based mainly on tourism-related employment. We have an extraordinary opportunity ahead of us if the bid to give world heritage status to the east Devon and Dorset coast is successful. We will learn the result in December. The United Kingdom currently has 20 world heritage sites, 11 of which are situated in England and one of which is the Palace of Westminster, together with the abbey and St. Margaret's church.
	The proposed world heritage site is the 88 miles of coastline between Orcombe point near Exmouth and Old Harry rocks in Dorset, with some exceptions of coastline that do not exhibit important geological or geomorphic features. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has been campaigning vigorously along with my predecessor for world heritage recognition. The geomorphology of the coast is of global importance. There is a complex spectrum of every combination of landslide-forming rocks of the Triassic, Jurassic and cretaceous periods, which together provide an extraordinary teaching laboratory comparable to similarly important landslide areas to be found in New Zealand and the Black sea.
	World heritage site status will lead to new opportunities for tourism, but we must address them in advance. It is vital that the gateway towns to this proposed new site do justice to it. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to providing funding for the restoration of Seaton Hole and the Alma bridge at Pennington Point, which have suffered as a result of coastal erosion and landslides. Their current condition is a source of great local concern.
	We must ensure that the tourism industry offers suitable training, first-class accommodation and, indeed, sufficient accommodation. We must reverse the trend that we have seen recently in Sidmouth, for example, of losing hotel beds to residential development. We must improve access by road, which will mean improving the A303, the A30 and the A35. We must improve access by plane, which will involve a controlled expansion of Exeter international airport. We must also improve our train services on both the Paddington and Waterloo lines as a matter of urgency. None of this can be achieved without commitment and funding.
	In today's world, agriculture and tourism are interlinked. People come to our part of the world and marvel at our landscape. Unlike our coastline, it has been man-made over the centuries by landowners and farmers. It looks as it does because it has been farmed, and it must continue to be farmed. The Government must recognise that, above all.
	I urge the Government also to recognise that tourism in my part of the world will not recover of its own accord. It desperately needs help. The total revenue generated by tourism in the United Kingdom during 2000 was around 64 billion. Of that, 6 billion was spent by tourists and visitors to the south-west, which amounts to 10 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the region. However, investment by the Government in the English Tourism Council, which includes the allocation to the council and to the regional tourist boards, was 11.7 million, or 20p per head of the population, compared to 3.77 per head in Scotland and 4.03 per head in Wales. Moreover, none of that money can be used for marketing. The report published by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in May 2001 states:
	These figures leave no doubt that there has been a sustained problem of under-funding by the public sector in tourism that has affected English tourism in particular.
	I urge the Government to provide at least 3 million so that we can develop a professional and effective campaign aimed at our home and near-overseas markets. I urge them to reconsider the inequalities in funding to which I have just alluded. I also urge them to take up South West Tourism's plea to set up an independent competitiveness review of the costs and profits position of the United Kingdom's tourism business, compared with our overseas competitors, so that we can best judge how to increase what is, after all, the fourth largest industry in the country.
	I make no apologies for promoting my part of the world. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who have not finally settled on their summer holiday destination will now think favourably of the south-west, but with one caveat: that none of my colleagues bring a leadership campaign down there. I can guarantee right hon. and hon. Members who come to the south-west a memorable holiday; I can equally guarantee them welcoming and appreciative hosts.

Alan Hurst: It is amazing that, of the last four speakers, I should be the most senior in terms of service, as I have been here for only four years. It is a delight to listen to maiden speeches, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) on a heartfelt and principled speech. Those qualities always add to the geographical and historical descriptions that we also enjoy. Unless the constituency of Midlothian has been redistributed, I believe that I have been there once. I visited the town of Balerno, but it may no longer be in his constituency.
	I also enjoyed the two maiden speeches from Opposition Members. That of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) was almost a model maiden speech. He expressed his view of the countryside and its importance well. I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). I do not know Henley, but I was intrigued by his geographical description. I now realise that it is just east of the Khyber pass, and I shall bear that in mind when travelling.
	The speeches so far have been reasoned and well balanced. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) tends to go overboard in his condemnation of the Government. He is not
	slow to chide and swift to bless,
	to quote the hymn. We need to take a more balanced approach to the position in agriculture and our rural communities.
	Agriculture has always been in crisis. We could almost go back to biblical times and the seven fat years and seven lean years. Agriculture is subject not only to economic fluctuations but to those of nature, which are often beyond the control of man. In the past decade, agriculture in this country has suffered from BSE, classical swine feverat least in East Angliaand, lastly and most devastatingly, foot and mouth. On top of all that, economic factors, such as the decline of the markets in the far east and Russia, have proved pernicious to our export trade.
	Agriculture has also been affected by the climate: in the past year, there have been floods and droughts. All those factors affect farms on the margins, especially farming communities in what used to be called marginal areas.
	Further problems spread from agriculture to the rest of the rural community. Not enough people are engaged in agriculture. At the end of the second world war, approximately 1 million people were employed in agriculture. It was the equivalent of the mining industry. Agriculture and mining have suffered colossal decline in different ways. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made a fascinating maiden speech in which he told us about the unity between farmers in one part of his constituency and miners in the other. We must remember that town and country, industry and agriculture do not stand apart. They form a unity.
	The problem nowadays in rural areas is that so many people can no longer work locally. Many others move to rural areas because, as the descriptions of new Members often imply, they are idyllic havensplaces where one wants to live. People live, or simply sleep or weekend, in those havens and return to London, Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham or Cardiff to work. Consequently, the village store does not have customers to buy from it every day. The local garage cannot sell petrol because the commuter or weekender has bought petrol more cheaply at Tesco, Asda or elsewhere. The local pub is also affected for several reasons but mostly because the closely bound community, of which the pub, the chapel and the school were all part, no longer exists.
	That has been happening for decades. Twenty-five years ago, I lived in a small village beneath the highest point of the Pennines. Before I lived there, it had a school, a chapel and a post office. The school had gone in the distant past, the post office had hung on until the proprietor retired, although no replacement could be found, and the chapel went after I left, so that village no longer has the essential ingredients of community life.
	Rather than blame the Government or the previous Administration, we should consider the long-term trends that are causing great problems to our rural communities and we must devise a means whereby people who live in the countryside can work in the countryside. Part of it might take the form of Government schemes to encourage young people to enter farming. The average age of those in the farming community is even greater than that of members of the Conservative party and new people are not coming in. Also, it is difficult to take up farming at a young age because of the price of land.
	The situation is absurd: commodity prices are low and profitability has been squeezed to the margin, but the price of the acres on which farming takes place is still ludicrously high, certainly in the south and the east. That involves elements of speculation, does it not?
	Large organisations, banks and insurance companies buy agricultural land as a speculative investment. They have no real interest in the product that comes from the land and no real desire for the communities based on that land to thrive. They are interested in the price of the land and they will do everything by way of purchase or sale to keep the price high. That represents the investment, but it is one of the factors that make it so difficult for agriculture to survive.
	At one time, many farms were rented, so the young farmer, or the son, nephew or niece of a farmer, could rent land to raise animals or grow crops. That is now unbelievably difficult and the only way to do it is to form a contractor company whereby people contract out their labour and work for others who own the land. The problem with that, which other Members may have experienced in their divisions, is that that system separates the occupation of the land from those who work on it.
	I look to the Government to devise schemes whereby they encourage young people back to the land through either financial incentives or renting out state-owned land. Unless we get more people back in the countryside and working in agriculture, the crisis, if I may use that word, will go on for many more years. Eventually, the foot and mouth outbreak will end and I entirely agree with those who have said that we need an inquiry. What form it should take I do not know, but it should not be akin to that chaired by Senator Joe McCarthy. It should seek proper solutions to problems that have been discovered, and we must find out what happened. That issue can be addressed, but the long-term problems in agriculture require us all to think about how we can resolve them.
	I should mention two more contemporary matters. The first is arable agrimonetary compensation. I do not trot along with the notion that we should go to Brussels and ask for the money and that Brussels should hand it over. We all know that most of it is our own money and that we are spending it among ourselves, but there is a case for making an application because the price of arable crops is some 70 per cent. of what it was a few years ago.
	Secondly, I want to raise the renewal of the over-30-months scheme. Although there are alternatives such as the welfare schemes, difficulties were created by its suspension when the foot and mouth epidemic was at its height and farmers are experiencing great problems. That issue has links to the need to stimulate and support small slaughterhouses. Finally, it is universally agreed that we must be ever-vigilant to ensure that we do not allow contaminated food to enter this country by way of sandwiches, non-Cornish pasties or whatever and thereby put our livestock at risk.
	I shall support the Government tonight because they are making genuine attempts to help to solve the problems in our rural communities. It behoves us all to work together to achieve those solutions.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech, and I am delighted to follow the maiden speeches of the hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and for East Devon (Mr. Swire). If they think that they have the most beautiful constituencies in the United Kingdom, let me tell them that they have stiff competition from North Tayside. I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton). We both have Scottish constituencies and we both have mining backgrounds, although unfortunately mine has been lapsed for two generations.
	I am grateful to have been called to make my maiden speech in a debate about the countryside. My constituency consists almost entirely of countryside, being one of the five largest in the United Kingdom, and it experiences many of the issues and difficulties described so well today. Before I discuss those difficulties, however, let me saylike many maiden speakers before methat in my humble opinion, mine is perhaps the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom.
	North Tayside is a constituency of rivers and mountains, of market towns and open spaces. In the heart of Scotland is highland Perthshire, and around that beating heart flow the rivers of the Tay. They are the heart's blood of my constituencyrivers such as the Tummel, the Ericht, the Isla, the Strath and the Braan, which make up the largest river system in the UK, flowing ever onwards and outwards into the Tay estuary.
	The western part of Angus is also in my constituency. There the River Esk flows down from the mountains that adorn the Angus glens. What can I say of the mountains? At the geographical heart of Scotland is Schehalion, hill of the fairies, the most striking mountain in the whole of Scotland. We also have Ben Lawers, Ben Aglow and Ben Vrachie, and Dreish and Mayer sit deep in the Angus glens.
	Mine is also a constituency of estates and castles. I think that it must contain more noble Lords than any other constituency in Scotland. Deep in Strathmore is Glamis castle, perhaps the finest example of a baronial castle anywhere in Scotland. At the foot of the Tay is Scone palace, ancient home of Scottish kings and true home of the Stone of Destiny.
	The thing that I do not like about my constituencythere always has to be one thingis its name. North Tayside sounds like a council ward in some old Labour municipal council. Whoever came up with that name must have been up in the Library all night. I suggest that we find a name more in keeping with the constituency's natural beauty. How about Strathmore, Highland Perthshire and the Glens? There is a name worthy of its splendour.
	I am grateful to the people of North Tayside for electing me to represent that beautiful constituency. I am, of course, aware of the responsibility involved. Let me also do what is traditional and pay tribute to my predecessor, John Swinney. John was elected to the House of Commons in 1997, and it is hard to believe that he served only one term, given the impact that he has made on Scottish politics since.
	John transformed the constituency, turning it into one in which all constituents' concerns were addressed immediately. It is also hard to believe that he served two of his four years here with a dual mandate: that never stopped him from being a most effective Member of Parliament. Wherever I went during my election campaign, there was a good word about John Swinney, and a growing realisationaccompanied by pridethat this was a future First Minister of Scotland. I had to reassure my constituents that John was going nowhere, and would continue to represent their interests in the Scottish Parliament. I now look forward to working as part of an effective team with John to ensure in both Parliaments that all our constituents' concerns are addressed.
	John has, of course, gone on to bigger and better things since becoming a Member of Parliament here in 1997. I am not referring to the fact that he is now convener of the Scottish National party, or even the fact that he is Leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament but to the fact that he is now Scotland's most eligible male, as decided by Scotland on Sunday. That is an honour to which this Member for North Tayside does not aspire and from which, in any case, he is disqualified by reason of marriage.
	Before John's incumbency, North Tayside was represented for 18 years by the Conservatives in the guise of Bill Walker. Bill is what is commonly described as a colourful character; I think that everyone involved in Scottish politics has a favourite Bill Walker story. He and his colleague the then Member for Perth and Kinross provided the House with an unforgettable double act that I am sure is sorely missed by some of our older Members.
	It is surprising that tourism has been so little debated this afternoon. Tourism is a big issue for my constituency, given its natural beauty and scenery. Tourism is one of the major employers in North Tayside. It has struggled under the impact of foot and mouth disease, but it was in crisis in Scotland long before the latest outbreak. The high cost of fuel and the high value of the pound make a double whammy that continues to beat the countryside. We cannot underestimate the effect of the strong pound on deterring European visitors. That was clearly demonstrated to me when German friends told me that this year they would not make their usual annual trip to Scotland because it was too expensive. They could get two weeks of luxury accommodation in the Mediterranean for their two nights of bed and breakfast in Scotland. Moreover, they could be guaranteed all-day sunshine in that destination. The best that I could guarantee was that the weather was likely to be changeable.
	Poor access to European airports from Scotland is another factor. For a nation of 5 million people, we have appalling access to European destinations. The services that exist are highly priced and infrequent. The extra cost of coming north from an English airport is an added disincentive to European visitors.
	What of coming to Scotland by car? With our crazy fuel costs, we have started to enter the realms of the luxury holiday sector ourselves. We seriously cannot discount the high cost of fuel as a major disincentive to European and United Kingdom visitors to Scotland. Members on this Bench always ask, why has oil-rich Scotland got the highest fuel prices in Europe?
	Agriculture, agricultural supplies and textiles are also major employers in my constituency. Food production is perhaps the main employer in Strathmore, where the world-renowned berry industry faces many severe difficulties. It is but a shadow of its former self. The berry-picking season is nothing more than a distant memory.
	Even with all those activities, the main issue in my election campaign was local hospitals. I simply cannot equate the warm words of Labour Members with the reality of health service provision in my constituency. The service on Tayside is in chaos. There is no confidence in its delivery and staff morale is at rock bottom. We in Tayside are to be subject to a centralisation programme that takes no account of the geography of the area or the public's desire to retain popular local services.
	The east of my constituency is served by the Stracathro hospital. Its acute hospital status will be lost with services centralised in distant Dundee. The western part is served by the Perth royal infirmary. The preferred option is to remove maternity and paediatric services once again to Dundee. That means that my constituents will face upwards of a 100-mile journey to receive the services. A service already seen as remote will now seem as though it were at the other end of the country.
	I come before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the first Member of Parliament from the world of popular music. I am reliably informed that I am the first Member who has ever appeared on Top of the Pops in his own right, so you can imagine the onerous responsibility that that places on my shoulders. I find it staggering that no one before me has made the journey from the stage of the concert hall to the Floor of the House of Commons, given the historic association between popular music, popular culture and politics. We can see from history that popular culture has sometimes been expressed by musicians and artists and that that led and dominated political debate. In the counter-culture of the 1960s, there were those who rallied against unwarranted international aggression and those who championed and pioneered the rights of minorities and women. Music has so often been the soundtrack of political change. At times, music and song have even articulated it. Can any hon. Member imagine political change without the songs?
	People and commentators ask me what are the differences between my previous profession and my new job in the House. I answer that it might be a different stage and even a different song, but that I will certainly not get an encore in this place.
	Tonight's debate is entitled The Countryside in Crisis. It is clear that the countryside ranks low in this Government's priorities and thinking. They come on the back of a Conservative Government who gave us the BSE disaster. It must have been the first incident that gave the feeling of crisis, from which the countryside has never recovered. We must also remember that it was the Conservatives who introduced the fuel tax escalator, which started the crazy spiralling of fuel costs in the first place.
	My constituency consists almost entirely of countryside, and particularly beautiful countryside at that. Let us do what we can to promote it and ensure that we get the best from our most prized assetour countryside.

Helen Clark: I begin by congratulating hon. Members on some excellent maiden speeches. I assure the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) that after he has won his second election victory he will come to love the name of his constituency. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on a tremendous maiden speech. I especially valued his comments about his predecessor, whom we all esteemed. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) is himself a victimised miner; I know that his comments will have resonance on both sides of the House, and I hope that we will achieve justice for such miners during his time in this place.
	I cannot begin my speech without mentioning the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who gave us such an entertaining bird's-eye view of his constituency. I am convinced that he will uphold the tradition of dashing blonds in the House.
	As my contribution to the debate, I lend support to those who urge the Government to work in Brussels for EU-wide fund switching under the common agricultural policy, so that this country is not at a disadvantage, and to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to allow much wider application, to most UK farms, of agri-environmental schemes, organic conversion, farm woodland development and so on. That will mean that agricultural practices can become more sustainable and can protect, rather than detract from, the natural environment and wildlife. I am confident that there will be public support for that sensible emphasis.
	Consumers want quality, and they want safety. Most people have come to understand that the condition of the countryside concerns us all whether we live in the country or, like myself, represent an urban constituency. Many of my colleagues support the aims of the organic targets Bill, which would make 30 per cent. of land and 20 per cent. of food marketed in England and Wales organic by 2010. Perhaps one of my colleagues will make it their business to help the Bill to make progress, through one of the channels open to Back Benchers.
	No one who has attended this important debate underestimates the scale of the current problems, and everyone knows that full recovery will take a long time. A document produced by the Countryside Alliance states that the lowest average weekly wages are in rural counties such as Cornwall, Northumberland and Shropshire; that seven of the 10 counties with a gross domestic product below the national average are rural; that total farm income is down from 6 billion in 1995 to 1.8 billion in 2000; and that the average farm income after expenses is 5,200 per farm. That is clearly unsustainable. The Countryside Agency estimates potential losses of 2 billion in the rural economy as a whole as a result of the terrible foot and mouth epidemic.
	Before the election, I hosted an event in the House that brought together several rural interest groups and at which representatives of the Farm Stay UK Exmoor group took the opportunity to brief the then Minister for Tourism on the scale of their losses. I know that she had hoped to visit Exmoor to see for herself. No doubt her successor will want to strengthen such contacts.
	The income from letting accommodation keeps many farms going. A small family farm with six bedrooms is currently losing between 500 and 600 a week. The Exmoor group will lose 25,000 a week as the holiday season progresses, and is looking at a loss of 500,000 if foot and mouth disease continues throughout the summer.
	Even counties such as Dorset, with no FMD, have been badly affected. The English Tourism Council has pointed out that if there is a silver lining to the terrible FMD crisis it is that it has demonstrated to the Government, the business community and the public what the industry already knew: the importance of tourism to local economies. In some rural economies it is the main employer, and we could get far more from it in terms of growth and jobs. The council says that 4 out of every 5 spent on English tourism comes from domestic tourists, so it is they who need to be encouraged back. We need a wide-ranging review of the industry, and encouragement for certain ventures.
	Before the election, I supported a proposal by Farm Stay UK to acquire Government backing for an integrated nationwide information and support service, as exists in France. Again, the then Minister was sympathetic, and I hope that the Government will revisit the issue in the light of the continuing crisis. There should be much more support for organisations such as LEAFLinking the Environment and Farmingwhose activities I have promoted on several occasions in the House, and there are others, such as the Farmers Conservation Group and the Farmers and Wildlife Advice Group. Perhaps there is a case for those groups to co-ordinate and work more closely together. We must also support new industries in rural areas.
	Last week I was fortunate enough to secure a debate on environmentally friendly fuels, and I talked about liquid biofuels from farmland, which are important in my own region, as well as in others. Fears about climate change have increased this very week, and we know that the need to reduce greenhouse gases is urgent. The slaughter of more than 3 million animals during the terrible FMD epidemic has left much land under-utilised, and the set-aside scheme contributes nothing to our gross domestic product.
	I understand that the European Commission is working towards a directive that would make it mandatory for member states to ensure that 2 per cent. of road transport fuel came from biofuels by 2005. In the United Kingdom that would involve some 300,000 tonnes of biodiesel and perhaps 400,000 tonnes of bioethanol. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested a 20 per cent. rebate for biodiesel in the 2002 Budget. That is welcome, but it does not go nearly far enough.
	A few thousand tonnes of recycled oil may be involved, but it is by no means certain that that fuel can meet the essential quality standards required under engine warranties without the addition of perhaps 10 times as much pure oilseed. I understand that the rebate will not be paid on fuel that does not meet the standard. No firm guidelines have been given for bioethanol. Research has been mooted, but it will be years before it can make any serious contribution to the rural economy and cleaner air.
	Many issues have brought crisis to our countryside, and hon. Members on both sides of the House must work together in the spirit that has characterised this excellent debate. I am delighted to have heard such sensitive speeches from new Members on both sides of the House. I am also delighted that they have all contributed to the theme of this debate. We can work together, and I am confident that we will.

Hugh Robertson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also thank all hon. Members who have kept their speeches short enough to allow me a brief innings tonight.
	I thought that as the summer recess is fast approaching, I would take hon. Members on both sides of the House on a brief tour of a very green and pleasant landor at least it was green and pleasant until the channel tunnel arrived. I was elected this year to represent the Faversham and Mid-Kent constituencya creation of the 1997 boundary commission. I know that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) knows it well.
	My constituency comprises all the countryside between Sittingbourne and Maidstone on the western side and Canterbury and Ashford in the east. It rises in the north on the north Kent coast and sweeps over to Favershamoriginally a cinque port and a well known mediaeval market town, which is now famous as the home of the oldest family-owned brewery in the country, Shepherd Neame.
	My constituency continues beyond Faversham, across the north downsan area of outstanding natural beauty, criss-crossed by many ancient pilgrim routes to Canterbury. Beyond that to the south is the rolling countryside of the weald, to the west of which are the prosperous suburbs of Maidstone. However, it would be wrong to try to argue that all that part of the world is prosperous. At the eastern end of Maidstone are two of the most deprived housing estates in Europe. As Members will imagine, it is from there that much of my postbag comes.
	The town, however, has the accolade of being home to three former Members of the House: Sir Roger Moate, Andrew Rowe and Sir John Wells. Indeed, it is the current home of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
	Over the past few weeks, a number of people have grappled with the question of how to talk about their predecessors. I have no such problems. Andrew Rowe was universally regarded as one of the most diligent and popular constituency Members. After I was selected, I was very struck by how many people said to me what a difficult job it would be to follow him as the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent. I have been amazed since my arrival at the House by just how many people have said to me how sad they were to see him go. There may be some irony in that. Mr. Speaker told me that Andrew Rowe would be an extremely hard act to follow, and at the end of my first month here, I am just beginning to understand exactly what that means.
	I am sure that all Members of the House, knowing that Andrew Rowe was not well in his last few years here, will join me in wishing him a long, happy and well deserved retirement, and will hope very much that the disease that blighted his final few years in the House will finally be laid to rest. He was indeed a credit to the House.
	I asked to make my maiden speech today because in many ways, the countryside defines my constituency. Not for nothing is it known as the garden of England. However, as with the many other parts of the countryside that Members have mentioned, my constituency is in crisis. Incomes and the number of people employed in rural industries are falling and many of the orchards that so characterise that part of England are being grubbed up.
	The reasons for that are many and varied. They include low prices, because farmers receive a falling share of the retail price; cheap imports from abroad with which we cannot compete; poor weather; regulation; and most critically, surprisingly enough, the labour situation. Many of my constituents tell me that they simply cannot get their fruit picked. The answers to the problem are also many and varied, but it is interesting that none of the farmers directly wants any form of state handout. All they want is the security to run their farms as businesses, free from interference and over-regulation.
	Fruit farmers ask for three things in particular. The first is fairness in competition; they want to compete on a level playing field. The second is honesty in labelling. They would like consumers to know accurately the country of origin and the means of productiona point that the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) touched on earlier. Above all, they want more flexible labour arrangements. They want to employ casual labourers at the national minimum wage. During the election, I spoke to a fruit farmer who, sadly, had had to lay off all the local workers because he simply could not tackle the regulations involved in taking them on for short periods.
	Fruit farmers also want an increase in the seasonal agricultural wages scheme so that they can access more nationals from countries joining the European Union. I met some Polish 17 and 18-year-olds who, having left school, are over here to pick our fruit and to learn something of our culture. They were also learning English and they were having a marvellous time. It is an extremely good scheme and I commend it to the House.
	I have been asked to be brief, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. I am particularly fortunate to represent a constituency in an area where I was born, educated and brought up. Farming in general, and horticulture in particular, is the one industry that affects the whole of my constituency. In Kent, the fate and the future of the countryside is the single biggest issue for most of my constituents, and I believe that it will be best safeguarded by promoting a living and working countryside.
	The horticulturists whom I represent are keen to produce high quality food in a healthy environment and to preserve Kent's beautiful countryside. I, as their MP, am very keen to help them do that. I ask for the help of Members on both sides of the House to help them achieve their aim.

James Paice: I remind the House of my interest which is properly listed in the Register of Members' Interests.
	Although the debate was rather short, it was marked by a succession of excellent maiden speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House. They commenced with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) who, as well as rightly paying tribute to Michael Heseltine, demonstrated that his wit in literature is repeated in his speeches. His light-hearted tour of his constituency enshrined some serious concerns. He is lucky to hold such a grand constituency and the House is fortunate to have him. He came here with a reputationthat can often be a millstone around new Members' necks, but he demonstrated that that will not be so for him.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) rightly paid tribute to Sir Peter Emery whose wise words we miss. He, too, took us on a tour of his constituency from Roman days, through Raleigh and Betjeman, to its problems today. He presented a shopping list for his constituency, and I hope that when he stands for re-election he will have ticked off some of the items that he has come here to obtain.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) continued the trend of using breweries as part of the route map around a constituency, which in his case is in the garden of England. He succeeded Andrew Rowe, a true gentleman whose mild manner concealed strongly held views. My constituency also grows much fresh produce and we, too, have the problem of obtaining enough labour, to which my hon. Friend referred.
	We also heard maiden speeches by the hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton), who used strong words to describe his mission here, and the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), who even I have to admit represents a truly beautiful and historic constituency. However, if he is worried about hospitals in his area, it is no use coming here because the House no longer deals with such matters in Scotland.
	All the maiden speeches were fluent and clearly argued. The new Members bring a great deal of varied knowledge and experience to the House. They are all welcome and we look forward to their contributions.
	When the Secretary of State replied to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), she criticised him for repeating some of the points that he made in the debate on the Queen's Speech. That was churlish because she could not reply to him at the time because of her voice, and it was right that he should repeat them.
	We strongly welcome the right hon. Lady's announcement that the over-30-months scheme will restart. Farmers in many parts of the country have pressed for that. However, a large number of cattle are over 30 months only because they could not be moved off their farms as prime beef. We await a Government decision on whether those farmers will receive compensation.
	The right hon. Lady also referred to the green belt and produced a lot of statistics, but it is not size that matters with the green belt. It is no use expanding the green belt on the outside if we allow it to be eaten away on the inside, because it then ceases to protect villages and city centres, for which the green belt is important.

Colin Challen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Paice: No, I shall not. We have tried hard to fit in a number of maiden speeches.
	The development of the green belt and greenfield sites is a problem in my constituency. I do not understand why it is necessary for the Government to impose housing figures on local authorities. We have been told that we must have 2,800 new homes a year in the Cambridge sub-region, which is a higher figure than either the county council or district councils believe is necessary. The consequences of possibly creating a new town in the area are causing many people much heartache.
	I deal now with agriculture, and agrimonetary compensation which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). Much of the debate has been about the livestock sector and my later remarks will deal with that, but we must not ignore the arable sector, which is also suffering. Last week, the figures for this year's area payments were fixed, as a result of the exchange rates during June. For cereals, the payment rate went up by 26 euros per hectare, but translated to sterling, the rate, including the penalties for over-production and the modulation, is at a standstill. That is another example of the increasing difficulties that British farmers are experiencing in trying to be on the same playing field as their continental competitors. I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking on agrimonetary compensation.
	As for livestock, an order on the fishmeal ban was laid before the House last week. It will have considerable cost implications for farmers and feed manufacturers. Of course we support the ban on meat and bonemeal, but it has been banned in this country for many years, whereas in the rest of Europe the ban is very recent, so we already have systems to control and authenticate fishmeal to ensure that there is no risk of contamination by meat and bonemeal. I understand that the Food Standards Agency's advisory committee on animal feedstuffs has said that the new proposal is unnecessary, so why is DEFRA continuing with that further cost increase for farmers?
	I want largely to deal with the situation in our hills and uplands, to which the Secretary of State briefly referred. I look forward to what she will say when she considers the matter later this month, as she has promised to do. Two weeks ago, the Scottish Agriculture Minister said that the sheep industry was two months from meltdown. Does the Secretary of State share that refreshingly honest opinion? The reason for the crisis is that large numbers of lambs will be finished in the next two or three months and many of them, as hon. Members have said, would normally go to the Mediterranean trade and are not appropriate for the UK market so there will be a huge surplus of those animals.
	In addition, between 5 million and 7 million lambs and draught ewes would have been sold at auctions throughout the country from August to October. That includes store lambs for further finishing in the lowlands, and ewe lambs and draught ewes bought for further breeding. On top of that, some 800,000 cattle would normally change hands in the autumn.
	I have several questions for the Government. First, will they confirm that there will be no changes in the provisionally free area system? Will they allow any live sales to take place in provisionally free or at-risk areas? Will they clarify whether slaughtered-out farms can be restocked from within the infected areas with some of the lambs that I have mentioned? Will they amend the licensing rules, which at the moment allow movement only for breeding purposes, to allow movement for further growing and fattening? What is the Government's attitude to the Meat and Livestock Commission's protocols for various alternative trading options to try to assist with the problem? Will store lambs and cattle that do not find a market be eligible for a welfare scheme?
	Will it be possible to designate corridors through infected and at-risk areas to provisionally free areas so that sheep from the highlands of Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) referred, can come down into English at-risk and provisionally free areas? The Government are already allowing transport to slaughter outside infected areas, so they appear to have accepted that the process of transportation carries minimal risk. I ask them to look carefully at the idea of designating corridors, perhaps just motorways or dual carriageways, along which sheep can be transported.
	Finally, I turn to the issue of farmers putting the sheep that they would normally have sold out to other farms. As many hon. Members have said, the problem is that farmers have very little money with which to do that. Can we have an advance of the sheep annual premium, or something similar, so that farmers will have some cash to pay for over-wintering in the hope that those animals can be sold in the spring?
	None of those ideas or questions are new. The industry has been pressing the Government for answers for weeks, but no decisions or guidance have been forthcoming. The concern voiced in Westminster Hall last week is that in the absence of information all sorts of rumours aboundand that, coupled with the Government's suggestions about buying back quota, leads farmers to believe that the Government want many of them to go out of business. I hope that that is not true, but farmers' fears are understandable in the absence of information to the contrary.
	That view was intensified by reports of comments that the Prime Minister made to the chairman of the National Farmers Union of Scotlandapparently, the right hon. Gentleman said that farming was not one of his top 15 prioritiesand exacerbated by the delay in producing a recovery plan. I have been looking back on the issue of a recovery plan. On 27 March, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
	any recovery planwe are working on such a plan with the industrymust take into account[Official Report, 27 March 2001; Vol. 366, c. 845.]
	and so on and so forth. A month later, he said:
	We . . . intend to work in partnership with farmers and others to identify ways of assisting the recovery of the farming sector.[Official Report, 26 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 459.]
	On 3 May, he said:
	We are in discussion with the devolved Administrations and the farming unions.[Official Report, 3 May 2001; Vol. 367, c. 1004.]
	The current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said on 26 June:
	Work is in hand on a farm recovery plan.[Official Report, 26 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 524.]
	Three and a half months later, we are still waiting. All we have had is this week's announcement of 10.5 million of business advice.
	We need information now. The farmers of this country want to know how to get through the crucial sales periods in the coming months. Three and a half months to produce a recovery plan is too long. It is time to stop considering, reviewing and listening; it is time to act and to make decisions.

Alun Michael: We have covered a lot of ground this afternoon, from the Angus glens to the rolling countryside of East Devon. We have also covered a great deal of ground in terms of substance: serious issues have been raised by Back Benchers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton). Some require a more detailed response than there is time for at this stage of the debate, when there is little time left; in such cases, I shall respond in writing.
	I must start by commenting on the maiden speeches made today. I have particular sympathy with the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) who experienced that awful moment towards the end of a debate when one waits to see whether one will be squeezed out. I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House for making sure that he had time to speak. The hon. Gentleman succeeds Andrew Rowe, a delightful man who was a great champion of charities and the voluntary sector; he will be difficult to replace. There is a vacancy for someone who engages with the sort of issues in which Andrew Rowe took a strong interest.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on his maiden speech, which was a passionate promotion of the pubs of Henley. He was confident, assured and entertainingthe very qualities that inspire jealousy among listeners in the Chamber. It was the sort of speech that demanded the heckling and interventions that are forbidden during a maiden speech but that will, I am sure, occur on every future occasion that he rises to speak. Incidentally, I have to point out that it is the Government's policies on the countrysideand almost everything elsethat are clear, whereas it is impossible to know what the Conservative party stands for. None the less, I look forward to many meanderings and excellent speeches in future.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) whose style was wholly different. Serious and thoughtful, his comments were rooted in his own experience and knowledge of the needs of people living in a rural area with a mining background, such as the area where he was born and which he is now proud to represent. He gave a mature and worthy speech in which he showed a sense of humour combined with decency.
	In another first-rate speech, the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) rightly emphasised the link between farming and tourism. I agree with the link that he made and with the need to boost tourism. I have been involved in that for some 28 years. The issue is not just one of cash but of people having a sense of vision and direction. It is also about partnership between the different bodies and levels of government that can do something to promote the issue. I am certainly happy to accept his invitation to visit his region.
	I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have made available 3.8 million for national and regional public relations and marketing in tourisma subject he emphasised. That timely action did much to restart the domestic tourism season. We also pledged additional funding of 14.2 million. That was supplemented by another 2.1 million which was redeployed by the British Tourist Authority from previous plans. The BTA sought that amount for 2001 after full consultation with the industry. The point about needing to kick-start and promote tourism is well made but one with which the Government are already very strongly involved.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) demonstrated a nice style and a sense of humour. Standards are improving in the humour stakes in this House. He seemed, however, to have some problems with travel. I can only commend to him consultation with the Minister of State, Scotland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who is one of Labour's many rural MPs, a source of good advice and quite an entertaining companion.
	Listening to the debate, it is difficult to know why the Conservatives chose the subject of the countryside as they had nothing new to say. We had hoped to hear something constructive, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was hardly churlish to criticise the opening speech of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), given that it was a rather pathetic attempt to promote the old myth that the Conservative party is interested in the countryside.
	I must point out that it is Labour that has a practical and positive engagement with the needs of rural communities and the rural economy. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may mock, but they should look at the results of the general election, at which Labour Members were again returned in force to represent rural areas. Conservative Members should consider the work undertaken by Labour Back Benchers in making constructive proposals to the Government. I look forward to engaging with many of my colleagues in promoting the Government's positive programme. The hon. Member for South Suffolk posed a string of questions on which he had clearly not done too much homework. The arrival of foot and mouth merited maturity and responsibility on both sides of the House. It has been disappointing to see how the Opposition have responded.
	Our priority has been to eradicate foot and mouth diseasenot easy, given the devastating nature of the outbreak in comparison to the previous experience in the countrythen to alleviate the immediate impact on farmers and rural businesses and communities, and then to assist longer-term recovery. I am finding chairing the rural task force a most positive experience; we are dealing with difficult issues. All stakeholders have shown maturity and a willingness to engage, as they do in the stakeholders group in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs takes part, and that is extremely positive.

Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Alun Michael: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in trying to respond to the debate. The hon. Lady has not been with us this afternoon.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the outset, we must learn the lessons of the outbreak. There is an attempt to make mischief by suggesting that the Government should respond by setting up an inquiry. We have made it clear that we want to learn the lessons and to be as open and inquiring as possible, but that we must do so in a way that enables us to move forward rather than delay learning those lessons.
	It is important to look at longer-term trends and policies, to which some Members have referred. For some 20 years, rural communities have suffered a long-term decline in services. I must tell one or two Opposition Members who referred to the decline in some services in rural areas that they declined faster in the Conservative years than in any other period. The position is now the reverse: improvements in the past four years seek to make sure that small schools survive; we are putting more money into rural transport; and we are trying to make sure that shops survive in rural areas and that the Post Office engages with the need to provide services in rural areas.
	Some of those things are not just about an individual service, but involve looking laterally at how to combine the needs of the community with commercial reality. I visited Waters Upton at the beginning of the week and saw just such an example: people had recognised the need for a small shop, information technology and broadband access in a rural community. They also recognised the need for mothers seeking to return to work to obtain training, and combined all those things in a project that certainly benefits from planning gain but will be advantageous for the rural community. The number of village halls has increased. The Government have therefore stopped the decline in services as far as possible, but we have much to do to create a secure and sustainable future for rural communities. The rural White Paper was published last November and we shall certainly take account of foot and mouth in its implementation; it provides a framework in which we can progress.
	I point out to Opposition Members that, in looking at recovery, we have already provided 10.4 million to extend the facilities provided by the farm business advice service, which enables farmers directly affected by foot and mouth to apply for five days of free business advice rather than the three days provided under the previous scheme. That is vital, as statistics show. A survey of businesses in the west midlands showed that 80 per cent. of those which identified themselves as being directly affected by foot and mouth had not sought help or advice, and 60 per cent. did not decide to make any change in their business or its marketing, whether it was farm- related or another rural business. That is worrying, because there is a need to adapt and change. We must help, but industries must work with us if we are to achieve those changes.
	I was surprised that Opposition Members raised the issue of crime. As a Home Office Minister, I set in train research into rurality, which led to additional money going to rural police forces to tackle the problem. We are providing extra resourcesan additional 15 million last year and 30 million this yearand more officers can be recruited from the ring-fenced crimefighting fund. This year, we have seen the build-up to the second round of crime and disorder reduction strategies, which provide rural communities with a voice and engagement with the police and local authority in every area of the country. If adopted positively, that will create a partnership between people living in those communities, the police and local authorities to tackle and reduce crime. That is an appropriate response to rural areas and their experience.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who made a well informed contribution and was involved in the work leading to the White Paper, which seeks to provide a framework for delivering our aim of thriving rural communities in a protected and accessible countryside. We need to help people in rural areas to access key services, and have set in train moves that will give them that benefit. We must provide greater access to affordable new housing and support for farmers and rural business; we must make local government in the countryside more responsive; and, across government, we must engage with the needs of the countryside. The Government care about the countryside and will work with all who do to ensure that it has a sustainable and thriving future.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 277.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House supports the Government's key priority to eradicate foot and mouth disease as quickly as possible; regrets that the Opposition has failed to notice the Government's recent announcement of an enhanced Farm Business Advisory Service which encourages farmers to develop new income opportunities and an extension of the rate relief scheme to ensure further financial support to businesses in rural areas suffering most from the impact of FMD which will help councils to grant 100 per cent. rate relief to eligible small businesses up to the end of the year, as well as continuing other measures to help the rural economy to recover from the crisis; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper and the England Rural Development Programme; applauds the Government's wider record on public service delivery in rural areas; and calls upon the Government to continue pursuing a strategy based on long term policies to regenerate British agriculture, improve rural services and revitalise the rural economy as a whole.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Immigration

That the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved. [Mr. Caplin.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June],
	That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.[Mr. Caplin.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed tomorrow.[Mr. Caplin.]

DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM COMMITTEE

Motion made,
	That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Andrew Love, John McDonnell, Mr. Denis Murphy, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ian Stewart and Brian White be members of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform.[Mr. Caplin.]

Hon. Members: Object.

2001 CENSUS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Caplin.]

Karen Buck: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in the House. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for my part in her having drawn the Thursday night short straw.
	I have requested this debate because of the considerable significance of census data to all local authority areas. The collection of accurate information about the population and their characteristics is of incalculable importance, not least because the data that are collected now will form the basis for most of the standard spending assessment block calculations for the revenue support grant settlement in two years' time. The census statistics are the only source of much of the small areas data that local authorities draw on, especially data relating to ethnicity. This is, therefore, an issue of considerable importance to every Member of Parliament, every councillor and many others.
	As the representative of an inner-London constituency, I am acutely concerned about this issue. Areas such as mine, in north Paddington and north Kensington, combine all the risk factors associated with poor data collection with all the factors contributing to high and complex levels of demand for services. This is particularly important in respect of ethnicity, because the service requirements of communities in which dozens of languages are spoken within a small area are quite different from and more complex than the needs of communities of similar social and economic characteristics in which there is perhaps only one language group.
	According to the Office for National Statistics, the strong population growth in London in recent years, as measured by the mid-year estimates, demonstrates that the population growth is overwhelmingly young. That young population is, by definition, likely to consist of people who are having children now or will do so in the near future, for whom they will naturally expect nursery provision and education. The planning of those services is incredibly sensitive and important. This subject is dear to my heart at the moment because, as of a couple of weeks ago, 250 primary school children in one small area of north Westminster were still awaiting the allocation of a school place for this September.
	Under-enumeration in the census, leading to a lack of reliable planning data and, possibly, to financial consequences in terms of grant allocation, has very serious consequences. Yet there can be little doubt that, in some small areas, serious under-enumeration has occurred.
	I shall give some examples of where things have gone wrong in my area, and I would like to set them in context. I understand how hard the process is. Dealing with populations of inner-city constituencies such as mine involves assessing accommodation in multiple-occupation houses and in an increasing number of short-let tenancies, both of whose populations are extremely hard to keep track of. This places a huge responsibility on census enumeration, and it is no coincidence that the areas in which I suspect there is a serious problem of under-enumeration following this year's census are exactly the same areas as those where we also have the most critical problem of electoral registration, for example.
	The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea is aware of this problem, and has taken on board the fact that its current electoral registration process is problematic, and that a great many people may have lost their ability to register to vote as a consequence. I am certainly not saying, therefore, that all the problems arising from census enumeration can be laid at the door of the census and the Office for National Statistics. This is a very difficult job indeed.
	I am also aware that the problems that we experienced in 2001 are not unique. The census also had huge problems in 1991, rooted in the effect of the poll tax. At that stage, there was clear evidence that a great number of people, particularly young people and those in inner-city populations, were deliberately avoiding the census because of the possible implications for registration for the poll tax. This time round, however, deliberate avoidance of being recorded in the census was negligible. In fact, members of the ethnic minority communities in my constituency, about whom I shall say more later, have stressed to me how keen they were to participate. There is a real awareness in those communities of the importance of their existence, extent and characteristics being recorded by the census, and they went out of their way to do everything possible to ensure that enumeration levels were high. Despite all that, we had some serious problems in some areas.
	I received dozens of complaints, not least when on the doorstep in the election campaign. I have already referred many of them to the Office for National Statistics. However, clusters suggest the possibility of a deeper problem. For example, the Westway travellers site was missed out despite repeated requests for forms. The Catholic Children's Aid Society, which works closely with the travellers, took up the matter. That was resolvedI am pleased about thatbut only after the Catholic Children's Aid Society had approached me and I had gone to the chief executive of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, who ensured that enumerators got into the travellers site.
	In Westminster, the residents association of the Fisherton street estate in NW8 wrote:
	While allowing for the distress caused to residents on the Lisson Green Estate
	the subject of a front-page story in my local newspaper on census problems
	please note the equally considerable distress caused to 99 per cent. of the residents in Dickens House (20 flats), Huxley House (20 flats), Landsmeer House (16 flats), Lilestone House (16 flats), Capland House (16 flats), Selena House (16 flats) and Gibbon House (16 flats) . . . despite requests, phonecalls, follow ups and assurance, not one word has been forthcoming to explain why an entire estate seems to have been excluded.
	Of note, I also wish to point out that enquiries and reports coming to me suggest that the way in which the Census, or lack of it, was handled in the multi-cultural and economically sensitive area of London deserves some sort of apology and explanation for the Bureau.
	The director of Westminster Race Equality Council told me that scores of families from Chinese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Afro-Caribbean and other minority communities did not get forms. Abdul Toki, the chair of Marylebone Bangladeshi Association, said:
	Families came to me saying no forms had been issued . . . I volunteered my time to accompany officials to flats at the beginning of May. I heard nothing.
	Since details have been passed to the ONS, action has been taken in those specific cases. I am grateful for that, and to people who have been active in local community organisations and gone out of their way to work with enumerators.
	I also pay tribute to the overwhelming majority of enumerators who did an excellent job. It is not an easy task, and they did as well as they could. However, the fact that I received such complaints from well organised groups such as the Marylebone Bangladeshi Association and residents associations makes me wonder about the extent of non-contacts in more diffuse areas. My greatest anxiety is about those who live in streets of properties in multiple occupation. Those people are not part of well defined and cohesive residents or ethnic minorities organisations.
	I received several complaints about the difficulties of accessing the hotline and the lengthy delays in waiting for translation facilities on it. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux drew attention to the hotline problems, such as short holding times and restrictions on access for disabled people.
	There were many problems, some of which have been redressed. I am not wholly confident, however, that we will not end up with pockets of significant under- enumeration. That is my key point. The census coverage survey, which will ascribe imputation figures to the populations, may constitute a robust and excellent statistical process. I have no doubt that it is, and that clever people will ensure that door-to-door under- enumeration is assessed accurately. But I am concerned that the characteristics that those numbers represent may not be properly reflected in the census coverage survey, simply because it is highly unlikely that such a survey can correctly ascribe the characteristics of the dozens and dozens and dozens of minority communities and language groups in such a hugely diverse community.
	That is the nub of my case and I want the Ministerlater, if not nowto assure me that the census coverage survey and the use of imputation figures will ensure that the numbers are both accurate and an adequate reflection of the diversity and characteristics of an under- enumerated population.
	I hope that the Minister will do her best and work her hardest with the ONS to plug the gaps where she can through whatever possibilities remain in the direct process and through the census coverage survey. When the census data are published and used for rebasing the mid-year estimates, we will therefore be able to be confident that the hard pressed inner-city authorities that usually do an excellent job of providing services receive the resources that they require for the populations whom they serve. Those authorities are always looking for the complex pattern of demands made of them to be recognised, and I look forward to the Minister's response. 7.27 pm

Ruth Kelly: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate and I assure her that I am delighted to respond.
	The 2001 census is important for my hon. Friend's constituents, the Government and the country. It is a vital source of information on the number and characteristics of the population. The information it gathers is used by the Government, local authorities and health authorities to form policy, to plan services for specific groups of people and, in particular, to distribute resources effectively at a local level. As she said, the results will be the evidence base that informs policy in many key areas for the next decade, so it is important that the information paints an accurate, authoritative and comparable picture of the UK's population and its needs.
	Although we shall not have exact figures for the number of people counted until autumn next year, I believe that the census was successful. The return of census forms has been extremely high; the Office for National Statistics estimates that 95 per cent. have been returned and that the overall response will be as high, or higher, than that in 1991.
	The 1991 census faced genuine difficulties in accurately counting some groups, and about 2 per cent. of people were not counted. By international standards, that is not a bad performance. Indeed, such under-coverage would not be a significant problem if it were evenly spread between groups in the population, as those missed could be assumed to share the characteristics of the others, but I believe that particular groups were not fully represented in the results.
	In the example of young men in inner London and other cities, as many as 20 per cent. or more were missed, so our first challenge in planning the 2001 census was to ensure that those groups were properly counted. Since 1991, changes to population patterns have added to the difficulties that the ONS faces in compiling accurate census data on them. The size of some groups that are more difficult to count has increased, the number of people living alone and in properties with entryphone or other security controls has increased, which makes establishing contact more difficult, and life styles have become more varied, which makes it difficult to catch people at home.
	My hon. Friend helped the census by pointing out many of those difficulties to my predecessor and I thank her for the work that she did to ensure that those groups were properly represented. As she said, the groups that are difficult to count accurately during the census are often those that need particular support from the Government, so under-counting has a disproportionate effect on the resource decisions made on the basis of census data. That is why planning for the 2001 census began with the establishment of a coherent strategy to ensure that those groups were accurately counted, and why the final results presented a representative picture of local and national populations.
	The main aims published in the census White Paper in March 1999 were to ensure that the questions asked would provide useful information, to ensure that the results would be of good quality and would be produced according to a sensible timetable, to ensure that the whole operation was acceptable to the public and to ensure that the census represented value for money. A key priority was to reduce under-counting of particular groups, and to ensure that the results of the census would command the confidence of those who rely on them. That is most critical when the results are used for resource allocation to local authorities and health authorities.
	The plans for the 2001 census took on board a range of lessons learned from difficulties encountered in the 1991 census. They also recognised the impact of changes in society and changing needs for information, among Government and others.
	The plans for the census were subject to full and open scrutiny before being approved, and were properly developed and funded well in advance. The strategy for the conduct of the census had two main parts. We wanted to ensure that the highest possible enumeration was achieved, paying particular attention to the groups most likely to be under-counted. We also wanted to compensate for any bias by producing a final set of figures giving an accurate picture of the real population in the groups and areas that were under-counted.
	Let me explain how we attempted to achieve high returns. For the census in England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics established a range of procedures to ensure good coverage of all members of the population. It was expected that major urban areas, especially in London, would present a major challenge. Areas with high levels of ethnic-minority populations, multi-occupancy accommodation, estates with poor-quality housing or apartments protected by entryphone and other security systems would require particular attention. Arrangements were made to enumerate special population groups including the forces, students, rough sleepers, refugees and asylum seekers. Planning for the census was aimed at ensuring all those groups and areas were properly enumerated, including areas in which there had been significant under-counting in the 1991 census.
	The ONS adopted a variety of approaches to overcome specific difficulties. A major initiative was the local community liaison programme, in which the ONS worked with minority groups, charitable organisations and local and health authorities to encourage participation in the census and to help to identify sources of potential field staff. The questions and guidance on the census forms were translated into 24 languages, with a further two, Korean and Tamil, added during the fieldwork period. Interpreters were available to be used where necessary. Census materials were prepared in Braille, in large print and on audio tape. A publicity campaign sought to encourage universal self-inclusion. Publicity was also targeted at sectors of the community in which there had been significant under-enumeration in the 1991 census.
	Recruitment for the census aimed to ensure that local people who understood the local area carried out the work. Finding the right number of staff with the right qualities proved particularly tough in some inner-city areas. A number of local authorities, including Westminster city council, gave the ONS a great deal of support to ensure that recruitment was effective.
	Once they were recruited, training given to field staff emphasised the importance of making contact with householders. Census enumerators were required to make a number of calls during the census operation in order to make initial contact and to follow up households that had not responded. At the end of the main enumeration period, there was a further follow-up by team leaders and district managers of households that had still not responded. Enumerators in inner-city areas were given smaller work loads, so that they could spend more time on making contact and returning to households that had not responded. Collection of forms used a team approach that had been shown in tests to improve morale and overall response in hard-to-count areas.
	That was the first leg of the strategy. It was designed to target resources on the more difficult areas, in order to increase response and reduce differential under-coverage.
	The second part of the strategy was to put in place a robust and accurate method for taking proper account of the people who inevitably were missed and to produce a single set of numbers that everyone could trust. It was critical to produce final figures that were authoritative at local authority level. To ensure that the procedure adopted would command confidence, a steering committee for this part of the project was established, involving academics with international reputations in the field, other experts and representatives of central and local government as well as the census offices.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, the census coverage survey was central to this strategy. The survey was conducted immediately after the census. It sought to measure how effectively the census counted households and people by interviewing a cross-section of the population and carefully matching the results from this survey with the census. In England and Wales the survey covered approximately 300,000 households in 20,000 postcodes selected to form a representative sample capable of producing reliable figures for each local authority area. I emphasise that the census coverage survey was broad enough and independent enough to be reliable at individual local authority area level. That was an important feature.
	By using the findings of the coverage survey in combination with the findings from the census, the characteristics of those groups that were missed can be imputed and added to the original census database. While small pockets and particular groups of people may have been missed from the original census, the characteristics of the groups from which they are drawn should be covered by the combination of the census and the census coverage survey. It will then be up to the individual local authority to allocate its resources according to its local knowledge and to make up for any small gaps that it thinks may have occurred.
	The whole approach was thoroughly tested in a dress rehearsal for the census in 1999, involving some 150,000 households. The areas chosen for the tests included a cross-section of the population and types of housing found in the country as a whole. They included areas with high levels of multi-occupancy, student accommodation, hotels and holiday accommodation, and various ethnic minority groups.
	The final element of the strategy involves a series of plausibility checks against other information. For example, by rolling forward the number of births and deaths and adjusting for migration effects it is possible to get a high-level estimate of the numbers in each age group. By looking at the numbers receiving child benefit or retirement pensions it is possible to assess the aggregate numbers and locations of people in each of these groups. These plausibility checks form part of a comprehensive quality assurance process that has been designed to reflect the inevitable difficulties that would be encountered, especially among hard-to-count groups. Of course, the real test of this two-stage strategy will be how well it works in practice.
	The enumeration itself began in April. London was always expected to present particular difficulties in getting a good level of response, and special attention was focused on it during the planning stages. The procedures that were put in place to ensure the best possible response had a significant effect and there have been good reports from across the capital. Some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised with my predecessor, for example, show the type of situation that arose. Census staff were ready and prepared to follow up concerns so that the job was done as well as possible.
	It was inevitable that planning for an operation on the scale and complexity of the census would not cover all the circumstances that could arise, but throughout the census period ONS sought to respond to issues of concern as they emerged.
	I note my hon. Friend's point on the census helpline. It was planned to cope with a threefold increase in calls compared with 1991, but the interest was such that 250,000 calls were received on just one day in the week before the censusas many as were received during the entire period last time. ONS installed large numbers of extra lines within 48 hours and the service was improved.
	An additional factor was that in this census the public were asked to post their forms back as soon as possible after the census day on 29 April. There was an extremely high return of forms, which the ONS estimates as being close to 90 per cent. of the forms delivered.

Karen Buck: Although I accept the point that the helpline was improved, on a number of occasions people left messages or made contact saying that they had not received a return call, or said that it had taken many, many calls to secure information. I do not expect an immediate answer, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could let me know what monitoring was carried out of the information received through the helpline, so that we can establish why some cases were not followed up promptly and accurately and forms were not despatched.

Ruth Kelly: Of course, I shall take note of the points made by my hon. Friend. I can assure her that I shall look into that issue and reply to her.
	As I was saying, there was an extremely high return of formsabout 90 per cent. of the forms delivered. Field staff returned to households, as planned, to retrieve forms that were not returned by post. The ONS estimates that 95 per cent. of all forms are now back and that most of the remaining 5 per cent. relate to vacant addresses.
	Following the census, the census coverage survey took place between 24 May and 17 June. The outcome was better than the rehearsal, with a national response rate of more than 90 per cent. The exact figure for the number of people counted in the 2001 census will be available in August 2002, when information from the census forms, the enumerators' books and the results of the census coverage survey will have been analysed. The ONS is confident that the overall response will be as high, if not higher, than in 1991.
	When the results of the census and the census coverage survey have been analysed there will be a set of figures for each local authority area that will be comparable and consistent. Any under-counting of particular groups will have been kept as low as possible and, where it exists, will have been taken into account in the final results. Despite the best endeavours of all, some people will have been missed, but the strategy is designed to ensure that they will not lose out in resource allocation.
	I believe that the census will meet its objectives and that local authorities, including Westminster, will not lose out when the final count is in and the strategy as a whole bears fruit.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eight o'clock.